Commentary by Pete Speer
The article below addresses the differences in social context between PRC students and those in America. It discounts the No Child Left Behind program based on these differences. However, it implies that American schools must change.
Missing from discussion is the strong motivation in China -- under a communist dictatorship -- to move in some small way up the economic ladder. Implied (by listing the costs) is the value of such an education.
This article will be taken by proponents of our bankrupt system to mean that the social differences are responsible for the higher scores in China -- therefore scores may be ignored. This is not a correct reading of the article's content.
Indeed, the author concludes by suggesting that for our own dismal schools there must be another way. In America, the only other way is full competitive choice.
People hoping to intelligently debate this issue must be familiar with the article.
Pete Speer
The below article was reprinted with the permission of Dr. Orsini
-------------------------------------------
Illinois School Board Journal
January/February 2006
Big tests, big sticks
Social context of high-stakes
testing in China and U.S.
by Alfonso J. Orsini
Alfonso J. Orsini is director of the Western International School of Shanghai and a former special English teacher in Qingdao, China. His article first appeared in Education Week, July 13, 2005, and is reprinted with permission from the author.
This past school year, I have been teaching English for a special program at a public school in China. The experience has made me think a lot about the push toward high-stakes testing in the United States, especially with the impetus of the federal No Child Left Behind Act.
China is a country that promises to change the economic face of the globe in the years ahead. It has an incredibly lean, mean education machine. American policymakers, seeing embarrassing data such as the poor showing of U.S. students on recent international assessments in science and math, say they want to prepare our children to meet the global competition posed by countries like China.
If the No Child Left Behind law is meant to do that ?to help us compete with countries that have used big tests for a long time to scientifically weed and stratify their citizens ?the plan will fail. This is not just because of the problems inherent in creating and enacting such tests, but also because of the differing social, economic and cultural contexts that surround such tests.
Here is what the United States is up against. In China, all of the items on American business interests' education agenda are in evidence. There is a focus on the "useful" subjects of math, science and technology. There are large, economical classes of 50 to 60 students each. This works fine in China, because the students here are driven, and their teachers mostly lecture. (Their bow to modernization is in using a computer beamer instead of the blackboard.)
Walking through a Chinese classroom, you hear students chanting a lot in unison. The teachers are well-trained, in that they follow the script of slavishly preparing for the big exams. While they teach only about 10 classes a week, they must be in the school from 7:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. daily to prepare. Some big exam ?schoolwide, citywide or nationwide ?is always looming. The school's headmaster even assigns teachers research papers. They comply because they want to get a promotion, perhaps a merit raise of 200 yuan ($24) added on to a monthly salary of, say, 2,000 yuan ($242) for a veteran.
Office talk is often about "grammar points" that may appear on an exam. The exams must have a number of virtually impossible questions to keep teachers and students scrambling, and to allow the remarkable few to rise to the top. If students do poorly, it comes back to haunt the teacher and the school. Last year, the local newspaper asked why fewer graduates at my school had been admitted to top universities. That heightened the anxiety.
Another numerically based improvement has been enacted here: more class time. At my boarding school (the stronger public schools in China are boarding), students are in the classroom from late August to late July, six days a week, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:25 p.m., with a 1?hour lunch/nap break and a five-minute eye-massage break led by a woman's peppy, almost militaristic voice broadcast over the public address system.
After some sports, dinner and time to do laundry by hand (we all do laundry by hand here), the students are back in the classroom for study from 6:30 p.m. to 9:45 p.m., with monitoring chiefly done by students and only a few teachers roving the halls. When evening study concludes, it's back up to the dorm to wash up with a basin; there are no hot showers. Then, eight kids bed down in each 9-by-12-foot room.
My kids are from a higher socioeconomic bracket. Their parents are paying 24,000 yuan ($2,900) extra, on top of the regular tuition of 3,000 yuan ($362) per year. I am preparing them to pass the new English entrance exam for a Canadian university. They got into this school only because they paid extra for the special program. With rising prosperity, these kinds of educational back doors, including Australian and United Kingdom foundation-year programs, are popping up all over.
My students, always weary but still cheerful, have never dated, never camped or been to a dance, and have almost never traveled. In a paired-discussion exercise in which they had to find something interesting about a classmate, everyone was astounded that a boy called Nick had danced with a girl at his aunt's wedding. In our town of Qingdao, one of the hottest places to be on a Saturday or Sunday is not the shopping mall but the Xin Hua bookstore.
The educational rigor in China results from the social context. Only about 48 percent of rural residents and 79 percent of urban residents attain more than a primary school education. Of the 27 million students completing the "compulsory" grade 9, around 25 percent go into a three-year academic high school program and 18 percent go into vocational training. Of those 6.67 million who go to academic high schools, around 3.5 million will make it to a four-year university program. The statistics are harsher in some areas. In Beijing, 49 percent of 18- to 22-year-olds are enrolled in postsecondary studies, but in places like Yunan Province, fewer than 9 percent are enrolled.
But this doesn't mean that the Chinese don't value education. There are 310 million people in schools at all levels here, including over a million studying through TV university. The number of university students in China has grown from 1.08 million in 1998 to more than 17 million in 2003. And the Chinese government has just launched a program to send 5,000 college teachers overseas each year for doctoral study or research.
China has a cheap, willing workforce composed partly of the 310 million surplus workers from the rural provinces, only 180 million of whom found jobs in 2003. It also has a cheap, well-trained professional class. Doctors earn perhaps 2,000 yuan ($242) a month, beginning teachers maybe 1,000 yuan ($121). People live remarkably frugal lives. China is progressing not through empire building or aggression, but because it has people willing to do virtually any work with incredible patience and persistence to survive. And it is selling this, the cheapest labor in the world, to all takers, including many U.S. investors. It is also building cooperative ties with Canada, Europe and Latin America, and with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations group, which will create a free-trade zone of 2 billion people.
U.S. business leaders, in their urgent push to whip American education into line, may be among the few in our country who are truly aware of how things are outside the United States. They have a concrete motivation to be aware: money. And they may be seeing, correctly, that the peaceful threat posed by China and others developing nations requires that we do something differently. Some might say that a first step should be lowering the salaries of business executives. But if my perspective from China is valid, then a more general "leaning" of America may have to happen before big tests are widely tolerated by U.S. students and their families.
Big, consequential tests run up against a lot of obstacles in America. One of them is fundamental ?what the historian Richard Hofstadter labeled in his influential book as Anti-Intellectualism in American Life. Others include the distraction posed by the cultural excesses that assault American kids every day and the fact that U.S. students know there is a college in America for just about anyone who can pay for it. But beyond such problems, I wonder if American kids sometimes don't care about study because they sense that many adults don't care about them ?about the life of their minds and the enrichment of their souls.
When American adults who are busy making money create the kinds of sweeping educational schemes we have now, they implicitly view young people's learning ?and young people themselves ?as a means to an end, the figures on a balance sheet. And too often they don't even care enough to spend sufficient time or money on education. The No Child Left Behind initiative, which might better be called "no child left unclassified and not appropriately employed," is a case in point. When American kids start to get "left behind" (in most countries with big tests, that's what the tests are for), we can assume that parents with the means and education will be lined up to yell about it. But when federal funds get withdrawn from schools that fail, where will those already-beleaguered schools turn? How will their low-income students find another school?
If America winds up with the diminished role in the world and leaner standard of living that the new global economy may offer, there may be far fewer American parents with means and education. And one can bet that far more people will fall into line behind rigorous national testing. They will have no choice, as is the case today in China and in many other lands. My Chinese students always say: "That's how it is, with so many people and so little money. That's just how it is."
For now, we Americans can make all the tests we want. Kids will never be "lean and hungry" in a fat society. And the egotism of infinite possibility will never prevail against the fierce capacity for self-abnegation in the Asian psyche.
Isn't there another way that America can use its prosperity, not to build empires, but to enhance the quality of its people's lives? How China will use its eventual prosperity remains to be seen. We can hope, however, that its choices will not help prove the axiom that countries attaining prosperity and democracy must become effete, stratified and sometimes arrogant.
The author maintains an e-mail account at alfonso.orsini@gmail.com.
Monday, February 13, 2006
Sunday, February 12, 2006
School Choice Gaining Ground Across Country
For more great information on school choice visit The Heritage Foundation The article below appeared on FoxNews.com.
School Choice Gaining Ground Across Country
Friday, February 10, 2006
By Dan Lips
Supporters of school choice in Arizona must feel like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football.
And they must think of Gov. Janet Napolitano as Lucy -- pulling away the ball once again.
During budget negotiations last summer, Gov. Napolitano agreed to provide $5 million in tax credits for corporations contributing to private-school scholarship funds for low-income students who now attend public schools.
The governor -- long opposed to school choice -- explained at a news conference that “the $5 million tax credit was not a bad price to pay” to reach a budget compromise.
But days later, Napolitano changed her mind and vetoed the measure. She told the Arizona Republic she did this because the tax credit wouldn’t automatically “sunset,” as she had requested in the negotiations.
Jim Weiers, then the Republican speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives, couldn’t believe his ears. “There's only one way to put this,” he said. “The governor lied to me.”
Who to believe?
Consider this: On Jan. 11 of this year, the state legislature again passed tax credits for school choice. And this time, it included the sunset provision Gov. Napolitano had requested. A few days later, Gov. Napolitano vetoed the measure again. This time, she said she will consider a tax credit only during budget negotiations in the spring.
So, choice supporters will have to try again this summer to expand education opportunity for Arizona’s low-income students. Assuming the legislature can pass tax credits a third time, Gov. Napolitano will have to decide again whether to honor her promise or veto this popular program yet again.
It’s not an easy calculation. She must strike a balance between the demands of the 30,000-member Arizona Education Association, which opposes school choice, and Arizona families, who support school choice by nearly a 2:1 margin, according to a recent poll by the Goldwater Institute. Already, 100,000 children in Arizona attend charter schools or private schools, thanks to a 1997 scholarship tax-credit program.
The governor’s fellow Democrats are siding with the underprivileged in increasing numbers. In Washington, D.C., Democratic Mayor Anthony Williams and Sens. Robert Byrd, D-W.V., Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Joe Lieberman, D-Conn. provided critical support for the District’s new voucher program.
Last year, Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell approved legislation to expand the state's private-school tax-credit program. And in New Jersey, a coalition of Democratic state legislators is pushing a school voucher program to help poor, inner-city children.
Gov. Jim Doyle of Wisconsin, a Democrat, faces a similar quandary. Like Napolitano, he faces re-election in 2006 and must choose between the educational establishment and students. Wisconsin is home to the Milwaukee school-voucher program -- perhaps the most successful choice program in the nation. This program helps 15,000 low-income, inner-city children attend private school and has been shown to boost graduation rates.
The Milwaukee voucher program has proven so popular that there aren’t enough scholarships to meet popular demand. The program limits participation to 15 percent of the student population. Gov. Doyle has vetoed several proposals to raise the cap, which means thousands of inner-city children now in the program could be sent back to public schools this fall under the state's system for rationing vouchers.
The school-choice movement is nothing new. It’s been clamoring for alternatives to failing public schools for more than 20 years now. As successes, such as those in Milwaukee, mount, so does public support.
Lawmakers can’t treat the issue like Lucy does that football. Ultimately, they won’t be able to pull it away at the last minute. Then, they’ll have to make a stand. And what will it be: Will these leaders stand with the teachers’ unions or with underprivileged families?
Dan Lips is a policy analyst who specializes in education issues at The Heritage Foundation, a Washington-based public policy research institute.
School Choice Gaining Ground Across Country
Friday, February 10, 2006
By Dan Lips
Supporters of school choice in Arizona must feel like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football.
And they must think of Gov. Janet Napolitano as Lucy -- pulling away the ball once again.
During budget negotiations last summer, Gov. Napolitano agreed to provide $5 million in tax credits for corporations contributing to private-school scholarship funds for low-income students who now attend public schools.
The governor -- long opposed to school choice -- explained at a news conference that “the $5 million tax credit was not a bad price to pay” to reach a budget compromise.
But days later, Napolitano changed her mind and vetoed the measure. She told the Arizona Republic she did this because the tax credit wouldn’t automatically “sunset,” as she had requested in the negotiations.
Jim Weiers, then the Republican speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives, couldn’t believe his ears. “There's only one way to put this,” he said. “The governor lied to me.”
Who to believe?
Consider this: On Jan. 11 of this year, the state legislature again passed tax credits for school choice. And this time, it included the sunset provision Gov. Napolitano had requested. A few days later, Gov. Napolitano vetoed the measure again. This time, she said she will consider a tax credit only during budget negotiations in the spring.
So, choice supporters will have to try again this summer to expand education opportunity for Arizona’s low-income students. Assuming the legislature can pass tax credits a third time, Gov. Napolitano will have to decide again whether to honor her promise or veto this popular program yet again.
It’s not an easy calculation. She must strike a balance between the demands of the 30,000-member Arizona Education Association, which opposes school choice, and Arizona families, who support school choice by nearly a 2:1 margin, according to a recent poll by the Goldwater Institute. Already, 100,000 children in Arizona attend charter schools or private schools, thanks to a 1997 scholarship tax-credit program.
The governor’s fellow Democrats are siding with the underprivileged in increasing numbers. In Washington, D.C., Democratic Mayor Anthony Williams and Sens. Robert Byrd, D-W.V., Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Joe Lieberman, D-Conn. provided critical support for the District’s new voucher program.
Last year, Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell approved legislation to expand the state's private-school tax-credit program. And in New Jersey, a coalition of Democratic state legislators is pushing a school voucher program to help poor, inner-city children.
Gov. Jim Doyle of Wisconsin, a Democrat, faces a similar quandary. Like Napolitano, he faces re-election in 2006 and must choose between the educational establishment and students. Wisconsin is home to the Milwaukee school-voucher program -- perhaps the most successful choice program in the nation. This program helps 15,000 low-income, inner-city children attend private school and has been shown to boost graduation rates.
The Milwaukee voucher program has proven so popular that there aren’t enough scholarships to meet popular demand. The program limits participation to 15 percent of the student population. Gov. Doyle has vetoed several proposals to raise the cap, which means thousands of inner-city children now in the program could be sent back to public schools this fall under the state's system for rationing vouchers.
The school-choice movement is nothing new. It’s been clamoring for alternatives to failing public schools for more than 20 years now. As successes, such as those in Milwaukee, mount, so does public support.
Lawmakers can’t treat the issue like Lucy does that football. Ultimately, they won’t be able to pull it away at the last minute. Then, they’ll have to make a stand. And what will it be: Will these leaders stand with the teachers’ unions or with underprivileged families?
Dan Lips is a policy analyst who specializes in education issues at The Heritage Foundation, a Washington-based public policy research institute.
Saturday, February 11, 2006
Open letter to Ron Gidwitz Regarding his "Education Plan"
Kevin Killion of the www.Illinoisloop.org sent the below message to Ron Gidwitz regarding his education plan. Illinoisloop.org is a must read website for all true education reformists.
To: Ron Gidwitz
Dear Ron,
It seems that the press has all but ignored the announcement of your "P16" plan for education in Illinois. I'm sorry to say it, but that's not a surprise. The plan was woefully lacking in anything that would actually enthuse anyone. Where was the EXCITEMENT? The INNOVATION? Where were any common-sense REFORMS?
Here are the points in your press release, which I've copied in their entirety:
- Creation of more pre-school opportunities, with a special emphasis on encouraging enrollment of children from low income families;
Yawn. Maybe it would be simpler just to insist on effective,
research-based and teacher-directed reading instruction in
K-3?
- Mandatory kindergarten for all Illinois children by the age of 6. For parents who choose to homeschool, the state will provide educational resources.
Huh?
WHEN the state schools start demonstrating competence at
what they have now, THEN let's talk about expanding their
dominions.
Why not simply offer a full-cost voucher for Kindergarten,
good at ANY school?
- Smaller class sizes during the early years to allow more individual attention
Aw, Ron, c'mon now! YOU KNOW that smaller class sizes haven't
been shown to improve objective scores! We DO know that
small class sizes are popular with the Big Ed unions because
they cut workloads. Unfortunately, small class sizes,
besides being hugely expensive (more teachers and more classrooms),
also make it MUCH easier for weak teachers to fill class time with
pointless projects and activities.
- Intensive reading programs focused on first, second and third graders to assure that students are not promoted to fourth grade without achieving reading proficiency;
Uh, and that means what exactly? What exactly are you pledging
to do? Boring, boring, boring, Ron.
Ron, if you had put some DRAMA into this, you would have
had something. For example, "We have to sweep out the remnants
of failed education theories from our classrooms and ed schools.
It's time to concentrate on what works!"
- Shifting of the high school mathematics courses of algebra and geometry into the middle school experience.
Oh Ron, what a distinctly HORRIBLE idea!
Only a lousy half (54.3%) of students even came up to the
MINIMUM state standards for 8th grade math in the 2005 ISAT,
and yet you want to cram MORE into pre-high school years?
What a horrible, horrible idea!
We've got a vast number of kids in this state who can't
handle basic math, don't know standard algorithms, have
little or no experience with operations on fractions,
are vague at best on decimal conversions -- in short,
are utterly incompetent. AND YOUR RESPONSE IS TO
FORCE ALGEBRA AND GEOMETRY INTO THOSE YEARS?
I honestly can't even begin to imagine what you were
thinking on this one.
Meanwhile, you're ignoring the more basic problem:
the infestation of our K-8 schools by theory-based fuzzy math
programs that have been a disaster.
- Increased graduation requirements: four years of math and three years of science
Let me get this straight:
1) Our schools are using trendy but discredited fuzzy theories
to teach math,
2) and a thin soup of gee-whiz pyrotechnics to "teach" science,
3) with predictably awful results.
4) And your solution is NOT to restore rigor, but rather
to extend the nonsense by extra years?
Do I have that right?
- More options for 11th and 12th graders, including career training and apprenticeship programs and dual enrollments with community colleges and universities
OK, so that sounds like a fine idea since so many kids
come out of our schools with little ability to do much
of anything that requires thinking or knowledge.
- Cooperation and exchange between public and private higher education
And this is in the press release WHY EXACTLY? It's
inscrutable and means nothing on its face, so why did you
think anyone would be enthused about this?
- Incentives for teachers to encourage excellence in instruction
Ah, a Rorschach test!
Uh, does this mean you are going to reward teachers for
"achieving" meaningless steppingstones such as goofy
NBPTS certification, or going to fuzzy-wuzzy in-service
chatfests?
Or,
does it mean that you will reward teachers for
concrete evidence of teaching success, through merit pay
for gains in Value Added Assessment (VAA)?
If it IS the latter, and you are prepared to support
the common-sense notion that GREAT teachers deserve better
compensation, then why not simply SAY so and generate
some enthusiasm for your campaign?
- Funding our state's P-16 education needs FIRST, before all other programs
Sounds good for a few seconds, until one thinks,
"But what is that supposed to MEAN?"
I've tried and tried, but I can't see that it means anything
other than you intend to spend EVEN MORE MONEY on
a bloated cesspool of a bureaucracy that is already
awash with cash!
Heavens knows the education bureaucracy in this state needs a major shaking up. TWO MILLION KIDS in public schools in Illinois need your help in fixing the lunacy in their classrooms. It's an old but apt metaphor: We don't need to talk about rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. We need REAL REFORM.
I suspect that Illinois voters would respond to a message of REAL REFORM as well.
Sincerely,
Kevin Killion
Director, Illinois Loop
To: Ron Gidwitz
Dear Ron,
It seems that the press has all but ignored the announcement of your "P16" plan for education in Illinois. I'm sorry to say it, but that's not a surprise. The plan was woefully lacking in anything that would actually enthuse anyone. Where was the EXCITEMENT? The INNOVATION? Where were any common-sense REFORMS?
Here are the points in your press release, which I've copied in their entirety:
- Creation of more pre-school opportunities, with a special emphasis on encouraging enrollment of children from low income families;
Yawn. Maybe it would be simpler just to insist on effective,
research-based and teacher-directed reading instruction in
K-3?
- Mandatory kindergarten for all Illinois children by the age of 6. For parents who choose to homeschool, the state will provide educational resources.
Huh?
WHEN the state schools start demonstrating competence at
what they have now, THEN let's talk about expanding their
dominions.
Why not simply offer a full-cost voucher for Kindergarten,
good at ANY school?
- Smaller class sizes during the early years to allow more individual attention
Aw, Ron, c'mon now! YOU KNOW that smaller class sizes haven't
been shown to improve objective scores! We DO know that
small class sizes are popular with the Big Ed unions because
they cut workloads. Unfortunately, small class sizes,
besides being hugely expensive (more teachers and more classrooms),
also make it MUCH easier for weak teachers to fill class time with
pointless projects and activities.
- Intensive reading programs focused on first, second and third graders to assure that students are not promoted to fourth grade without achieving reading proficiency;
Uh, and that means what exactly? What exactly are you pledging
to do? Boring, boring, boring, Ron.
Ron, if you had put some DRAMA into this, you would have
had something. For example, "We have to sweep out the remnants
of failed education theories from our classrooms and ed schools.
It's time to concentrate on what works!"
- Shifting of the high school mathematics courses of algebra and geometry into the middle school experience.
Oh Ron, what a distinctly HORRIBLE idea!
Only a lousy half (54.3%) of students even came up to the
MINIMUM state standards for 8th grade math in the 2005 ISAT,
and yet you want to cram MORE into pre-high school years?
What a horrible, horrible idea!
We've got a vast number of kids in this state who can't
handle basic math, don't know standard algorithms, have
little or no experience with operations on fractions,
are vague at best on decimal conversions -- in short,
are utterly incompetent. AND YOUR RESPONSE IS TO
FORCE ALGEBRA AND GEOMETRY INTO THOSE YEARS?
I honestly can't even begin to imagine what you were
thinking on this one.
Meanwhile, you're ignoring the more basic problem:
the infestation of our K-8 schools by theory-based fuzzy math
programs that have been a disaster.
- Increased graduation requirements: four years of math and three years of science
Let me get this straight:
1) Our schools are using trendy but discredited fuzzy theories
to teach math,
2) and a thin soup of gee-whiz pyrotechnics to "teach" science,
3) with predictably awful results.
4) And your solution is NOT to restore rigor, but rather
to extend the nonsense by extra years?
Do I have that right?
- More options for 11th and 12th graders, including career training and apprenticeship programs and dual enrollments with community colleges and universities
OK, so that sounds like a fine idea since so many kids
come out of our schools with little ability to do much
of anything that requires thinking or knowledge.
- Cooperation and exchange between public and private higher education
And this is in the press release WHY EXACTLY? It's
inscrutable and means nothing on its face, so why did you
think anyone would be enthused about this?
- Incentives for teachers to encourage excellence in instruction
Ah, a Rorschach test!
Uh, does this mean you are going to reward teachers for
"achieving" meaningless steppingstones such as goofy
NBPTS certification, or going to fuzzy-wuzzy in-service
chatfests?
Or,
does it mean that you will reward teachers for
concrete evidence of teaching success, through merit pay
for gains in Value Added Assessment (VAA)?
If it IS the latter, and you are prepared to support
the common-sense notion that GREAT teachers deserve better
compensation, then why not simply SAY so and generate
some enthusiasm for your campaign?
- Funding our state's P-16 education needs FIRST, before all other programs
Sounds good for a few seconds, until one thinks,
"But what is that supposed to MEAN?"
I've tried and tried, but I can't see that it means anything
other than you intend to spend EVEN MORE MONEY on
a bloated cesspool of a bureaucracy that is already
awash with cash!
Heavens knows the education bureaucracy in this state needs a major shaking up. TWO MILLION KIDS in public schools in Illinois need your help in fixing the lunacy in their classrooms. It's an old but apt metaphor: We don't need to talk about rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. We need REAL REFORM.
I suspect that Illinois voters would respond to a message of REAL REFORM as well.
Sincerely,
Kevin Killion
Director, Illinois Loop
Friday, February 10, 2006
Q&A | MATH TEACHING
Yet another article pointing out why American students are not properly educated. More money is not the answer reform is the answer. Paying bad teachers more will not improve the quality of education in any school system. What is needed is real reform. Teachers with masters degree in the subjects they teach, teaching degrees do not lead to mastery in the subject they teach. No more money to the schools until legislators are willing to legislate real reform. Our concern must be to the students not to the unions and administrators who are destroying the education system and students lives by not properly educating them or preparing them and this Country to prosper in the 21st century. Please be sure to catch the complete series in the LA Times.
Q&A | MATH TEACHING
Students in the U.S. Could Use New Formulas
By Tanya Caldwell
Times Staff Writer
February 3, 2006
The nation's children aren't the best and brightest in the world when it comes to math, according to the 2003 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study. Even among industrialized countries, the United States ranked ninth out of 12.
As the Los Angeles Times' Monday installment of "The Vanishing Class" series described, 35% of future elementary school instructors who studied at Cal State Northridge, the largest supplier of new teachers to the Los Angeles Unified School District, got Ds or Fs in their first college-level math class last year.
Los Angeles schools Supt. Roy Romer has cited the "cumulative failure of our ability to teach math adequately in the public school system."
William Schmidt, a professor at Michigan State University and executive director of its Third International Math and Science Study Research Center, was asked by The Times whether other countries have as much trouble finding adequately trained math teachers as the United States.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question: Why are many other countries so far ahead of the United States in math achievement?
Answer: These other nations have a much higher level of expectation for their students. The teachers who
then teach these courses — at least in the highest-achieving countries — have a much greater preparation in the subject matter of mathematics, so that they're able to teach those more challenging levels of mathematics.
Put simply, from the data we have, we know that by the end of eighth grade, U.S. students are probably some
two years behind their counterparts in most of the rest of the world…. Middle school in the rest of the world is about algebra, geometry, chemistry, physics. In this country it's still about a lot of arithmetic and what I call "rocks and body parts."
Q: It seems that the quick solution would be to just set higher expectations.
A: That's really what the whole thing surrounding No Child Left Behind is about. States have begun to raise their standards and, as a result … there has been a movement to greatly increase the rigor and the demand of the state standards. Here in Michigan we have new standards, and they are much more demanding than were the standards that preceded them. So I think that there has been a response to this and it's beginning to change.
Q: How is it that students aren't excelling as well in high school math classes — presumably because they haven't learned the basics — when they seem to have done better in previous years when those basics were first applied?
A: Studies show that middle school is where we lose a great deal of ground, at least internationally. The middle school in these other countries in mathematics is much more demanding. And it's much more of a transition into what we in this country first do in high school. So when our kids come into high school, they're a couple of years behind already. And our high schools just can't make it up.
Basically, the middle school is not preparing kids adequately. But it actually goes all the way back even into primary school, where, again, the kids are not being prepared well, don't understand and aren't able to do the computations associated with simple arithmetic.
Q: So it starts in elementary school?
A: We need to really start a much more serious, clearly defined, coherent curriculum all the way back there, and then we'd have a better shot at doing better with our kids.
A lot of mathematics in this country is not designed very coherently. It doesn't progress from the simple to the more complex in ways that are reflective of the mathematics discipline. There's a sequence of things that make the most sense. And very typically in American schools, these sequences are not very clearly laid out.
Q: What do you mean?
A: Fractions, for example, are very difficult for students. Instead of introducing the concept clearly enough so that they understand fractions as numbers on the number line, we oftentimes try to move too quickly to other parts of fractions, such as the operations, before they really have a clear understanding of what fractions are and how they fit into the broader number system.
So kids are trying to learn how to operate on these things, and at the same time they really don't understand what they are, so things get very muddled in their minds.
Q: What will it take to get U.S. students to perform better than their overseas peers?
A: We need a more coherent, challenging curriculum. And we need a set of teachers who have a strong background in mathematics and who know how to teach mathematics to kids and can then bring those high expectations to these kids. It's fairly simple. You look across the world, and that's what the difference is.
Q: Are the nations throughout the world using a different curriculum? Do they have different teaching methods?
A: That's actually a point I want to make very clearly. There doesn't seem to be one perfect method for doing this across the world. Different countries have different methods, just like we do here in the United States.
The real issue is the what. What it is that they're studying, in what grade levels in what sequence and at what level of rigor. Those are the issues that become important, not the how. It's more the what.
Q: We're just not being hard enough.
A: Yes. That's it, in a certain sense. As we move through the grades, we keep repeating topics year after year. We try to do too many topics at each grade level. We coined the phrase the "mile-wide, inch-deep curriculum" as a characteristic of the U.S., which means they just keep repeating these topics and as a result they have so much every year that it's too much
for the kids to try to learn.
In these other countries it's a more focused attention on a smaller number of topics that progress across the grades in a logical fashion, leading to higher levels of expectation as you get up in the grades, like in the middle grades. And that's what we need.
Q: In Los Angeles, some educators say they have a hard time finding qualified teachers. Is that a problem for other nations?
A: For some. In the elementary grades, everybody struggles with this, because elementary teachers have to teach all the subjects. But once you get into about middle school, this is more of a problem in the United States, where our teachers are not as well prepared as the teachers in these other countries.
We are doing a study right now across six countries in which we very clearly find that U.S. teachers — U.S. teachers from middle school — are not being … required to take the same level of mathematics that is true in other countries. Teachers that are going to teach middle school mathematics have to have a stronger background.
Q: What can be done to ensure that the future math teachers who are still in school will be better than the teachers who taught them?
A: The simple answer is that they have to have a more rigorous training while at the university level. Many of our teachers carry with them that inadequate preparation and carry it right back and teach much the same way. It is a vicious cycle.
We need to raise the level of expectation for the students that are in our K-12 system so that they are more competitive. But we also have to raise the level of preparation of our teachers so that they can come in and actually teach those more challenging and more demanding curricula. It really demands both of those things in order to make the difference and catch up with the rest of the world.
*
(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX)
By the numbers
A 2003 study found that U.S. 15-year-olds scored low
among industrialized nations on the PISA* mathematics
test. Rank Country Score
1. Hong Kong (region) 550
2. Netherlands 538
3. Japan 534
4. Belgium 529
5. Australia 524
6. New Zealand 523
7. Norway 495
8. Hungary 490
9. Latvia 483
(tie) United States 483
11. Russia 468
12. Italy 466
* Program for International Student Assessment
-
Source: American Institutes for Research
Q&A | MATH TEACHING
Students in the U.S. Could Use New Formulas
By Tanya Caldwell
Times Staff Writer
February 3, 2006
The nation's children aren't the best and brightest in the world when it comes to math, according to the 2003 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study. Even among industrialized countries, the United States ranked ninth out of 12.
As the Los Angeles Times' Monday installment of "The Vanishing Class" series described, 35% of future elementary school instructors who studied at Cal State Northridge, the largest supplier of new teachers to the Los Angeles Unified School District, got Ds or Fs in their first college-level math class last year.
Los Angeles schools Supt. Roy Romer has cited the "cumulative failure of our ability to teach math adequately in the public school system."
William Schmidt, a professor at Michigan State University and executive director of its Third International Math and Science Study Research Center, was asked by The Times whether other countries have as much trouble finding adequately trained math teachers as the United States.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question: Why are many other countries so far ahead of the United States in math achievement?
Answer: These other nations have a much higher level of expectation for their students. The teachers who
then teach these courses — at least in the highest-achieving countries — have a much greater preparation in the subject matter of mathematics, so that they're able to teach those more challenging levels of mathematics.
Put simply, from the data we have, we know that by the end of eighth grade, U.S. students are probably some
two years behind their counterparts in most of the rest of the world…. Middle school in the rest of the world is about algebra, geometry, chemistry, physics. In this country it's still about a lot of arithmetic and what I call "rocks and body parts."
Q: It seems that the quick solution would be to just set higher expectations.
A: That's really what the whole thing surrounding No Child Left Behind is about. States have begun to raise their standards and, as a result … there has been a movement to greatly increase the rigor and the demand of the state standards. Here in Michigan we have new standards, and they are much more demanding than were the standards that preceded them. So I think that there has been a response to this and it's beginning to change.
Q: How is it that students aren't excelling as well in high school math classes — presumably because they haven't learned the basics — when they seem to have done better in previous years when those basics were first applied?
A: Studies show that middle school is where we lose a great deal of ground, at least internationally. The middle school in these other countries in mathematics is much more demanding. And it's much more of a transition into what we in this country first do in high school. So when our kids come into high school, they're a couple of years behind already. And our high schools just can't make it up.
Basically, the middle school is not preparing kids adequately. But it actually goes all the way back even into primary school, where, again, the kids are not being prepared well, don't understand and aren't able to do the computations associated with simple arithmetic.
Q: So it starts in elementary school?
A: We need to really start a much more serious, clearly defined, coherent curriculum all the way back there, and then we'd have a better shot at doing better with our kids.
A lot of mathematics in this country is not designed very coherently. It doesn't progress from the simple to the more complex in ways that are reflective of the mathematics discipline. There's a sequence of things that make the most sense. And very typically in American schools, these sequences are not very clearly laid out.
Q: What do you mean?
A: Fractions, for example, are very difficult for students. Instead of introducing the concept clearly enough so that they understand fractions as numbers on the number line, we oftentimes try to move too quickly to other parts of fractions, such as the operations, before they really have a clear understanding of what fractions are and how they fit into the broader number system.
So kids are trying to learn how to operate on these things, and at the same time they really don't understand what they are, so things get very muddled in their minds.
Q: What will it take to get U.S. students to perform better than their overseas peers?
A: We need a more coherent, challenging curriculum. And we need a set of teachers who have a strong background in mathematics and who know how to teach mathematics to kids and can then bring those high expectations to these kids. It's fairly simple. You look across the world, and that's what the difference is.
Q: Are the nations throughout the world using a different curriculum? Do they have different teaching methods?
A: That's actually a point I want to make very clearly. There doesn't seem to be one perfect method for doing this across the world. Different countries have different methods, just like we do here in the United States.
The real issue is the what. What it is that they're studying, in what grade levels in what sequence and at what level of rigor. Those are the issues that become important, not the how. It's more the what.
Q: We're just not being hard enough.
A: Yes. That's it, in a certain sense. As we move through the grades, we keep repeating topics year after year. We try to do too many topics at each grade level. We coined the phrase the "mile-wide, inch-deep curriculum" as a characteristic of the U.S., which means they just keep repeating these topics and as a result they have so much every year that it's too much
for the kids to try to learn.
In these other countries it's a more focused attention on a smaller number of topics that progress across the grades in a logical fashion, leading to higher levels of expectation as you get up in the grades, like in the middle grades. And that's what we need.
Q: In Los Angeles, some educators say they have a hard time finding qualified teachers. Is that a problem for other nations?
A: For some. In the elementary grades, everybody struggles with this, because elementary teachers have to teach all the subjects. But once you get into about middle school, this is more of a problem in the United States, where our teachers are not as well prepared as the teachers in these other countries.
We are doing a study right now across six countries in which we very clearly find that U.S. teachers — U.S. teachers from middle school — are not being … required to take the same level of mathematics that is true in other countries. Teachers that are going to teach middle school mathematics have to have a stronger background.
Q: What can be done to ensure that the future math teachers who are still in school will be better than the teachers who taught them?
A: The simple answer is that they have to have a more rigorous training while at the university level. Many of our teachers carry with them that inadequate preparation and carry it right back and teach much the same way. It is a vicious cycle.
We need to raise the level of expectation for the students that are in our K-12 system so that they are more competitive. But we also have to raise the level of preparation of our teachers so that they can come in and actually teach those more challenging and more demanding curricula. It really demands both of those things in order to make the difference and catch up with the rest of the world.
*
(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX)
By the numbers
A 2003 study found that U.S. 15-year-olds scored low
among industrialized nations on the PISA* mathematics
test. Rank Country Score
1. Hong Kong (region) 550
2. Netherlands 538
3. Japan 534
4. Belgium 529
5. Australia 524
6. New Zealand 523
7. Norway 495
8. Hungary 490
9. Latvia 483
(tie) United States 483
11. Russia 468
12. Italy 466
* Program for International Student Assessment
-
Source: American Institutes for Research
Thursday, February 09, 2006
Threats don't work
We at CRAFT encourage all parents being subjected to the same threats in your school district to write similar letters to the editor and to your school board expressing your sentiments if they are the same as this persons sentiments below. This Letter to the Editor appeared in the February 9 edition of Beacon News newspaper. Click on the post title to get to the Beacon News website.
Threats don't work
After reading all the threats about cutting activities if the school referendum doesn't pass, we've received a letter from the school, through our children, highlighting the cuts. This begs me to ask a few questions about the people on the School Board and the administrators for the school. First, why do they have to resort to threatening rhetoric? I work, along with my wife, to pay the taxes on our house in Yorkville, but neither of us respond well to the threats. If my children want to participate in after-school activities, we would find a way to pay for them. So by cutting the after-school activities they have not hurt our feelings. If you want to play, you should have to pay.
Why do we need buildings of such opulence with curved walls? Isn't it cheaper to make it a straight-forward building with square corners? Do we need a showcase for someone's ego, or a facility in which to teach the children? Every school I ever attended was a brick building, with square corners and minimal architectural details. All of them are still in use today. Why not pick one plan that can be replicated as the need grows, instead of several different designs?
I think the people of Yorkville should be very leery of the direction we're heading, when threats instead of logical options are the way to get in peoples pocketbooks. You are not going to embarrass me into voting for some referendum by bullying me and telling me my kids will suffer. This just shows me that you placed the children second.
Tony Pekich
Yorkville
Threats don't work
After reading all the threats about cutting activities if the school referendum doesn't pass, we've received a letter from the school, through our children, highlighting the cuts. This begs me to ask a few questions about the people on the School Board and the administrators for the school. First, why do they have to resort to threatening rhetoric? I work, along with my wife, to pay the taxes on our house in Yorkville, but neither of us respond well to the threats. If my children want to participate in after-school activities, we would find a way to pay for them. So by cutting the after-school activities they have not hurt our feelings. If you want to play, you should have to pay.
Why do we need buildings of such opulence with curved walls? Isn't it cheaper to make it a straight-forward building with square corners? Do we need a showcase for someone's ego, or a facility in which to teach the children? Every school I ever attended was a brick building, with square corners and minimal architectural details. All of them are still in use today. Why not pick one plan that can be replicated as the need grows, instead of several different designs?
I think the people of Yorkville should be very leery of the direction we're heading, when threats instead of logical options are the way to get in peoples pocketbooks. You are not going to embarrass me into voting for some referendum by bullying me and telling me my kids will suffer. This just shows me that you placed the children second.
Tony Pekich
Yorkville
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Bullying starts with pro-referendum pushers
It is no wonder we have a problem with bullying in public schools. The very people that are to be educating our children bully our children, their families, the taxpayers and government officials into supporting referenda. The children learn bullying from the pro-referendum hoodlums. All across Illinois school districts are threatening program cuts and shunning fiscal responsibility. Some school districts are threatening lawsuits against those who are opposing referenda. This must stop.
The school district and school board exist to educate our child and to be good stewards of our taxpayer dollars. The school board is not there to serve the interests of the teachers unions, administrators, banks, contractors, real estate agents, bound counsels and various other special interests groups.
Developers’ not current homeowners should shoulder the burden for the building of new schools. This can be done through impact fees and agreements with the city councils and zoning boards before these developments are built.
School boards, teachers and administrators cry that there is a funding problem, the problem is their spending. One just needs to review the teachers’ and administrators’ contracts and a history of revenues to understand that spending is the problem.
Bravo to those public officials who will not take a position on referenda. Bravo to those parents who are speaking out against these referenda if more parents like you speak out these referenda will fail. Parents can teach their children a great deal about sticking up for themselves by not giving into these bullies. Sticking up for yourself also leads to better self esteem. Parents as well as children should write school boards and let them know the boards primary interests are to the children and being fiscally responsible with taxpayer dollars. Reasonable contracts would lead to balanced budgets. A no vote does not mean cut programs, it means we think you have enough money and we want you to spend it wisely. Vote no on March 21st this is the first step toward fiscal accountability.
The school district and school board exist to educate our child and to be good stewards of our taxpayer dollars. The school board is not there to serve the interests of the teachers unions, administrators, banks, contractors, real estate agents, bound counsels and various other special interests groups.
Developers’ not current homeowners should shoulder the burden for the building of new schools. This can be done through impact fees and agreements with the city councils and zoning boards before these developments are built.
School boards, teachers and administrators cry that there is a funding problem, the problem is their spending. One just needs to review the teachers’ and administrators’ contracts and a history of revenues to understand that spending is the problem.
Bravo to those public officials who will not take a position on referenda. Bravo to those parents who are speaking out against these referenda if more parents like you speak out these referenda will fail. Parents can teach their children a great deal about sticking up for themselves by not giving into these bullies. Sticking up for yourself also leads to better self esteem. Parents as well as children should write school boards and let them know the boards primary interests are to the children and being fiscally responsible with taxpayer dollars. Reasonable contracts would lead to balanced budgets. A no vote does not mean cut programs, it means we think you have enough money and we want you to spend it wisely. Vote no on March 21st this is the first step toward fiscal accountability.
End Teacher Strikes
End teacher strikes
In his recent letter to Crain's, Arnold Aprill claimed it was "no secret" that Illinois "ranks at the bottom of the country in funding education." Of course it's "no secret" because even the latest rankings reported by the National Education Assn. (NEA), the union representing most teachers outside Chicago, show that it's patently false.
According to the NEA rankings for 2005, Illinois spends the ninth-highest amount per pupil among the states. The report also showed that our spending is about 20% higher than the national average.
The NEA report identified why our children are shortchanged in programs such as art and other educational enrichments: disproportionately high staff salaries and raises.
The study reported that instructional staff in Illinois have the third-highest salaries among the states. Perhaps more troubling is the revelation that average Illinois instructional staff salaries grew at the highest rate of any state last year at 5.5%. This level of salary increase is unsustainable from any state or local revenue stream.
The solution to this problem is technically simple, but politically difficult. The General Assembly needs to prohibit teacher strikes in suburban and Downstate schools as they are in Chicago and 41 other states. It also needs to prohibit school boards from approving labor contracts for which they do not have a secured funding source and eliminate tenure protection for poorly performing senior staff.
Bob Shelstrom
Southland Education Watch
Palos Park
In his recent letter to Crain's, Arnold Aprill claimed it was "no secret" that Illinois "ranks at the bottom of the country in funding education." Of course it's "no secret" because even the latest rankings reported by the National Education Assn. (NEA), the union representing most teachers outside Chicago, show that it's patently false.
According to the NEA rankings for 2005, Illinois spends the ninth-highest amount per pupil among the states. The report also showed that our spending is about 20% higher than the national average.
The NEA report identified why our children are shortchanged in programs such as art and other educational enrichments: disproportionately high staff salaries and raises.
The study reported that instructional staff in Illinois have the third-highest salaries among the states. Perhaps more troubling is the revelation that average Illinois instructional staff salaries grew at the highest rate of any state last year at 5.5%. This level of salary increase is unsustainable from any state or local revenue stream.
The solution to this problem is technically simple, but politically difficult. The General Assembly needs to prohibit teacher strikes in suburban and Downstate schools as they are in Chicago and 41 other states. It also needs to prohibit school boards from approving labor contracts for which they do not have a secured funding source and eliminate tenure protection for poorly performing senior staff.
Bob Shelstrom
Southland Education Watch
Palos Park
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
Broken Bonds Daily Herald Series Continues
The stories below are day two of the three day Broken Bond series reported by Jeffrey Gaunt and Emily Krone of the Daily Herald. Be sure to get a copy of the stories and read them all before voting on any referendum. You may also want to contact the Daily Herald and tell them to keep up the great investigative reporting on public schools.
How the Daily Herald school bond study was done
What you should be asking
To be clear, schools aren’t thrilled, either
How the Daily Herald school bond study was done
What you should be asking
To be clear, schools aren’t thrilled, either
Monday, February 06, 2006
Daily Herald Series Drops Another Bombshell on School Spending Practices
More stories in the series "Big money, unspoken practices: The costly world of school loans" published in the Daily Herald. Stories publised in the Daily Herald on February 6th.
‘Whatever it Takes’: $103.7 million and counting
Costly loans get free rein in Illinois
BROKEN BONDS
District errs in search for delicate balance
Which do you prefer?
‘Whatever it Takes’: $103.7 million and counting
Costly loans get free rein in Illinois
BROKEN BONDS
District errs in search for delicate balance
Which do you prefer?
Sunday, February 05, 2006
Big money, unspoken practices: The costly world of school loans
Jeffery Gaunt and Emily Krone are doing another great series regarding schools. Be sure to pick up the Daily Herald the next three days, better yet they often do great articles on education you should obtain a subscription if you are willing and able. Must reads before you vote yes on any referenda.
Our analysis
Is this how you’d borrow money?
BROKEN BONDS Big money, unspoken practices: The costly world of school loans
On the hook for almost a half-billion
Know these terms
Premium path takes you above debt limit
Why lower rates?
Buy now, pay later
Our analysis
Is this how you’d borrow money?
BROKEN BONDS Big money, unspoken practices: The costly world of school loans
On the hook for almost a half-billion
Know these terms
Premium path takes you above debt limit
Why lower rates?
Buy now, pay later
Saturday, February 04, 2006
Questionable Practices of the School Construction Program
Please note the letter below. You may want to take the information in the letter below and send a letter to the Governor, your Senator and your Representative and ask them not to pour any more money into The School Construction Program.
This is a copy of the following message sent to Web-master via Illinois
Senate Republicans
This is an enquiry e-mail via http://www.senategop.state.il.us from:
Jeffrey D. Ferguson
I am writing to bring to your attention, a process that must not be allowed to continue. The School Construction Program is riddled with questionable practices. Per CDB records, only 254 of the 497 projects since 1998 were approved by the local voters in their respective district. Our district was one of the 243 that built schools with nothing more than a school board
resolution as authorization, despite a referendum being defeated 71-29%. I have spent the past 35 months researching and documenting the process at the local, regional, and state level. I have also contacted every conceivable state agency, as well as two Senators and the US Attorney's office. Still, Governor Blagojevich is proposing another $500 million be poured in to this Program. We have residents literally being taxed off their property and out of their homes, and the State, at every level, allows it to continue. Enough is enough. We are considering legal action in our district, which will undoubtedly have far reaching implications if we proceed. Our website is www.jccfpa.org. I suggest the Illinois GOP educate themselves on this
Program before any consideration is given to additional funding.
Cordially,
Jeffrey D. Ferguson, Chairman
Coalition for Public Awareness
chairman@jccfpa.org
This is a copy of the following message sent to Web-master via Illinois
Senate Republicans
This is an enquiry e-mail via http://www.senategop.state.il.us from:
Jeffrey D. Ferguson
I am writing to bring to your attention, a process that must not be allowed to continue. The School Construction Program is riddled with questionable practices. Per CDB records, only 254 of the 497 projects since 1998 were approved by the local voters in their respective district. Our district was one of the 243 that built schools with nothing more than a school board
resolution as authorization, despite a referendum being defeated 71-29%. I have spent the past 35 months researching and documenting the process at the local, regional, and state level. I have also contacted every conceivable state agency, as well as two Senators and the US Attorney's office. Still, Governor Blagojevich is proposing another $500 million be poured in to this Program. We have residents literally being taxed off their property and out of their homes, and the State, at every level, allows it to continue. Enough is enough. We are considering legal action in our district, which will undoubtedly have far reaching implications if we proceed. Our website is www.jccfpa.org. I suggest the Illinois GOP educate themselves on this
Program before any consideration is given to additional funding.
Cordially,
Jeffrey D. Ferguson, Chairman
Coalition for Public Awareness
chairman@jccfpa.org
$10 million spent annually by district for classroom subs
The article below appeared in the Chicago Tribune . Be sure to email the authors and tell them to keep up the great investigative reporting.
Chicago to target absent teachers
$10 million spent annually by district for classroom subs
By Tracy Dell'Angela and Darnell Little
Tribune staff reporters
Published February 4, 2006
Driven by parental concerns about teacher absenteeism, the Chicago Public Schools for the first time will start scrutinizing schools with high numbers of teachers taking sick days.
The district also plans to publicize teacher attendance rates at each school beginning next school year.
"This is important to parents. There's never been a spotlight on this, and that's a mistake," Schools Chief Arne Duncan said of the new scrutiny, which was announced to schools in a memo this week. "I think it's like any workplace. When people feel good about the work, people want to be there. This is not only important for student learning, it's important to school culture."
On any given school day in Chicago, an average of 1,500 teachers, about 6 percent of the teaching staff, call in sick or take a personal day, according to a Tribune analysis of teacher payroll records. The absentee rate is highest on Fridays, when an average of 1,800 teachers don't show, the analysis revealed.
While some individual schools track teachers' attendance, the district has never tried to analyze how many teachers are out systemwide--or whether some schools have a disproportionate number of absent teachers.
For each of the last six school years, Chicago teachers missed an average of 12 unscheduled days in their 39-week work year. Their current contract calls for 10 sick days and three personal days.
By comparison, salaried employees nationwide take an average of five sick and personal days during their 50-week work year, according to a 2004 survey of 536 employers by a major human resource consulting company.
The district's effort is an attempt to address the academic disruption that occurs in schools with large numbers of teachers calling in sick. But it also is expected to reduce the hiring of substitutes, which costs the cash-strapped system more than $10 million a year.
Last school year, the district tapped 280,000 substitutes, with the peak coming in February, when demand for substitutes topped 47,000--or about 2,350 each day. The demand for subs in the 2005-06 school year is even higher, up about 27 percent for the first five months of this school year compared with the same period the year before, according to district reports.
The absentee problem falls hardest on students in schools perceived to be dangerous or chaotic because their schools have the toughest time securing substitutes, principals say. In May, an average of about 200 substitute requests each day went unfilled, which meant that the school had to find another staff member to cover the classroom. Stable schools typically have their own stock of steady substitutes and don't rely on the district's substitute center.
Union officials contend that the district is unfairly trying to punish teachers for taking days that are guaranteed by the contract.
"The district is using this as an intimidation tactic," union President Marilyn Stewart said. "Teachers may take off for a lot of reasons, either because they are sick or frustrated. It's no one's business. I don't see why it has to be public. Why do parents care, if it's not tied to test scores? You can clean your house without letting everyone see your dirt."
Stewart argued that most Chicago teachers are dedicated professionals who are working under heavy stress and are not misusing sick time. She blamed the high absentee rates in certain schools on principals, who contribute to teachers' stress but do little to manage their staffs.
One principal agreed, saying the new policy stigmatizes schools without addressing some of the underlying reasons that drive teachers to call in sick even when they are not.
"There are a lot of things coming down from the central office from people who have no idea what it's like to be in a classroom with 32 children and an unsupportive principal," said Christina Gonzalez, principal of Zapata Academy on the Southwest Side. "Absences create chaos in the classroom and it creates chaos in the building. And of course you don't want teachers to be absent. But I don't think this is fair. I really don't think most teachers abuse it."
Duncan said the idea is not to shame teachers, but to spot schools where the absences suggest a deeper morale problem.
"If teachers are feeling that level of stress, then the question needs to be why and what can we do to relieve it," Duncan said.
Some school leaders favor the public attention because it lends weight to their own scrutiny of teachers suspected of misusing sick days.
At Otis Elementary, Principal James Cosme tracks his teachers' attendance yearly and looks for excessive absences that can't be explained by a long illness or family emergency. In a typical year, he may call in three teachers--out of his staff of 50--to discuss excessive absences. Usually it works, but sometimes it doesn't. He once had a teacher who frequently called in sick on Mondays, which Cosme suspected was caused by a drinking problem. He ultimately decided to dock the teacher's pay, and the teacher retired soon after.
Cosme also makes a practical appeal, urging teachers to conserve their sick days and bank them in case they need them in coming years for an unexpected illness. Or they can cash them in at the end of their career for a richer pension.
Even though he's paying attention to the issue, he welcomes the extra scrutiny.
"Anytime you shine a light on something, it forces self-examination," said Cosme, who said that in a typical year his teachers average six to seven sick days. "It will be interesting data because I don't know how well I do compared to other schools like mine."
At Bethune Elementary, Principal Charlotte Stoxstell is already one step ahead of the district. She sends out notices to teachers every month or two, detailing their attendance and punctuality rates. When it dips below 95 percent, the teachers are "reminded" they are falling short of the school's improvement goals.
And she tries to set a good example, taking care of her personal business in the evening or the weekends. At times, she even covers a teacher's classroom when he or she calls in, which is usually embarrassing enough to discourage frivolous absences, she said.
"I do fuss at them, but I don't just focus on the people who are out absent," she said. "I give it to everyone and I salute those who come every day."
----------
tdell'angela@tribune.com
dlittle@tribune.com
Chicago to target absent teachers
$10 million spent annually by district for classroom subs
By Tracy Dell'Angela and Darnell Little
Tribune staff reporters
Published February 4, 2006
Driven by parental concerns about teacher absenteeism, the Chicago Public Schools for the first time will start scrutinizing schools with high numbers of teachers taking sick days.
The district also plans to publicize teacher attendance rates at each school beginning next school year.
"This is important to parents. There's never been a spotlight on this, and that's a mistake," Schools Chief Arne Duncan said of the new scrutiny, which was announced to schools in a memo this week. "I think it's like any workplace. When people feel good about the work, people want to be there. This is not only important for student learning, it's important to school culture."
On any given school day in Chicago, an average of 1,500 teachers, about 6 percent of the teaching staff, call in sick or take a personal day, according to a Tribune analysis of teacher payroll records. The absentee rate is highest on Fridays, when an average of 1,800 teachers don't show, the analysis revealed.
While some individual schools track teachers' attendance, the district has never tried to analyze how many teachers are out systemwide--or whether some schools have a disproportionate number of absent teachers.
For each of the last six school years, Chicago teachers missed an average of 12 unscheduled days in their 39-week work year. Their current contract calls for 10 sick days and three personal days.
By comparison, salaried employees nationwide take an average of five sick and personal days during their 50-week work year, according to a 2004 survey of 536 employers by a major human resource consulting company.
The district's effort is an attempt to address the academic disruption that occurs in schools with large numbers of teachers calling in sick. But it also is expected to reduce the hiring of substitutes, which costs the cash-strapped system more than $10 million a year.
Last school year, the district tapped 280,000 substitutes, with the peak coming in February, when demand for substitutes topped 47,000--or about 2,350 each day. The demand for subs in the 2005-06 school year is even higher, up about 27 percent for the first five months of this school year compared with the same period the year before, according to district reports.
The absentee problem falls hardest on students in schools perceived to be dangerous or chaotic because their schools have the toughest time securing substitutes, principals say. In May, an average of about 200 substitute requests each day went unfilled, which meant that the school had to find another staff member to cover the classroom. Stable schools typically have their own stock of steady substitutes and don't rely on the district's substitute center.
Union officials contend that the district is unfairly trying to punish teachers for taking days that are guaranteed by the contract.
"The district is using this as an intimidation tactic," union President Marilyn Stewart said. "Teachers may take off for a lot of reasons, either because they are sick or frustrated. It's no one's business. I don't see why it has to be public. Why do parents care, if it's not tied to test scores? You can clean your house without letting everyone see your dirt."
Stewart argued that most Chicago teachers are dedicated professionals who are working under heavy stress and are not misusing sick time. She blamed the high absentee rates in certain schools on principals, who contribute to teachers' stress but do little to manage their staffs.
One principal agreed, saying the new policy stigmatizes schools without addressing some of the underlying reasons that drive teachers to call in sick even when they are not.
"There are a lot of things coming down from the central office from people who have no idea what it's like to be in a classroom with 32 children and an unsupportive principal," said Christina Gonzalez, principal of Zapata Academy on the Southwest Side. "Absences create chaos in the classroom and it creates chaos in the building. And of course you don't want teachers to be absent. But I don't think this is fair. I really don't think most teachers abuse it."
Duncan said the idea is not to shame teachers, but to spot schools where the absences suggest a deeper morale problem.
"If teachers are feeling that level of stress, then the question needs to be why and what can we do to relieve it," Duncan said.
Some school leaders favor the public attention because it lends weight to their own scrutiny of teachers suspected of misusing sick days.
At Otis Elementary, Principal James Cosme tracks his teachers' attendance yearly and looks for excessive absences that can't be explained by a long illness or family emergency. In a typical year, he may call in three teachers--out of his staff of 50--to discuss excessive absences. Usually it works, but sometimes it doesn't. He once had a teacher who frequently called in sick on Mondays, which Cosme suspected was caused by a drinking problem. He ultimately decided to dock the teacher's pay, and the teacher retired soon after.
Cosme also makes a practical appeal, urging teachers to conserve their sick days and bank them in case they need them in coming years for an unexpected illness. Or they can cash them in at the end of their career for a richer pension.
Even though he's paying attention to the issue, he welcomes the extra scrutiny.
"Anytime you shine a light on something, it forces self-examination," said Cosme, who said that in a typical year his teachers average six to seven sick days. "It will be interesting data because I don't know how well I do compared to other schools like mine."
At Bethune Elementary, Principal Charlotte Stoxstell is already one step ahead of the district. She sends out notices to teachers every month or two, detailing their attendance and punctuality rates. When it dips below 95 percent, the teachers are "reminded" they are falling short of the school's improvement goals.
And she tries to set a good example, taking care of her personal business in the evening or the weekends. At times, she even covers a teacher's classroom when he or she calls in, which is usually embarrassing enough to discourage frivolous absences, she said.
"I do fuss at them, but I don't just focus on the people who are out absent," she said. "I give it to everyone and I salute those who come every day."
----------
tdell'angela@tribune.com
dlittle@tribune.com
Friday, February 03, 2006
The Teachers' Unions - is there a more destructive force?
The article below appeared in the Wall Street Journal on the Editorial Page. The Wall Street Journal has been doing a great job as of late discussing the problems with teachers' unions and the American Public Education system.
The Education Borg
In Florida and Wisconsin, teachers unions crush
educational opportunities.
Sunday, January 29, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST
Teachers unions keep telling us they care deeply, profoundly, about poor children. But what they do, as opposed to what they say, is behave like the Borg, those destructive aliens in the "Star Trek" TV series who keep coming and coming until everyone is "assimilated."
We saw it in Florida this month when the state supreme court struck down a six-year-old voucher program after a union-led lawsuit. And now we're witnessing it in Milwaukee, where the nation's largest school choice program is under assault because Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle refuses to lift the cap on the number of students who can participate.
Milwaukee's Parental Choice Program, enacted with bipartisan support in 1990, provides private school vouchers to students from families at or below 175% of the poverty line. Its constitutionality has been supported by rulings from both the Wisconsin and U.S. Supreme Courts. Yet Mr. Doyle, a union-financed Democrat, has vetoed three attempts to loosen the state law that limits enrollment in the program to 15% of Milwaukee's public school enrollment. This cap, put in place in 1995 as part of a compromise with anti-choice lawmakers backed by the unions, wasn't an issue when only a handful of schools were participating. But the program has grown steadily to include 127 schools and more than 14,000 students today. Wisconsin officials expect the voucher program to exceed the 15% threshold next year, which means Mr. Doyle's schoolhouse-door act is about to have real consequences.
"Had the cap been in effect this year," says Susan Mitchell of School Choice Wisconsin, "as many as 4,000 students already in the program would have lost seats. No new students could come in, and there would be dozens of schools that have been built because of school choice in Milwaukee that would close. They're in poor neighborhoods and would never have enough support from tuition-paying parents or donors to keep going."
There's no question the program has been a boon to the city's underprivileged. A 2004 study of high school graduation rates by Jay Greene of the Manhattan Institute found that students using vouchers to attend Milwaukee's private schools had a graduation rate of 64%, versus 36% for their public school counterparts. Harvard's Caroline Hoxby has shown that Milwaukee public schools have raised their standards in the wake of voucher competition.
Mr. Doyle says he will agree to lift the cap to 18%, but only if it's tied to a change in the school-aid formula that he knows would never pass the Republican legislature--particularly in an election year. So instead of building on this education success, Mr. Doyle and his union allies are poised to close the book.
The unions scored a separate "victory" in Florida three weeks ago when the state supreme court there struck down the Opportunity Scholarship Program. Passed in 1999, the program currently enrolls 700 children from chronically failing state schools, letting them transfer to another public school or use state money to attend a private school. Barring some legislative damage control, the 5-2 ruling means these kids face the horrible prospect of returning to the state's education hellholes next year. The decision is a textbook case of results-oriented jurisprudence. The majority claimed the program
violates a provision of Florida's constitution that requires the state to provide for "a uniform, efficient, safe, secure, and high quality system of free public schools." Because "private schools that are not 'uniform' when compared with each other or the public system" could receive state funds under the program, the majority deemed it unconstitutional.
This is beyond a legal stretch. Not only have courts in such states as Wisconsin and Ohio rejected similar bogus "uniformity" challenges to school voucher programs, but so have other Florida courts. The logic of the ruling could also apply to charter schools, which are public schools that are able to live by non-uniform rules. That's the entire point of school choice--to break out of the stifling monopoly that traps so many poor children in "uniformly" awful schools.
What the Milwaukee and Florida examples show is that unions and their allies are unwilling to let even successful voucher experiments continue to exist. If they lose one court case, they will sue again--and then again, as long as it takes. And they'll shop their campaign cash around for years until they find a politician like Jim Doyle willing to sell out Wisconsin's poorest kids in return for their endorsement. Is there a more destructive force in American public life?
The Education Borg
In Florida and Wisconsin, teachers unions crush
educational opportunities.
Sunday, January 29, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST
Teachers unions keep telling us they care deeply, profoundly, about poor children. But what they do, as opposed to what they say, is behave like the Borg, those destructive aliens in the "Star Trek" TV series who keep coming and coming until everyone is "assimilated."
We saw it in Florida this month when the state supreme court struck down a six-year-old voucher program after a union-led lawsuit. And now we're witnessing it in Milwaukee, where the nation's largest school choice program is under assault because Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle refuses to lift the cap on the number of students who can participate.
Milwaukee's Parental Choice Program, enacted with bipartisan support in 1990, provides private school vouchers to students from families at or below 175% of the poverty line. Its constitutionality has been supported by rulings from both the Wisconsin and U.S. Supreme Courts. Yet Mr. Doyle, a union-financed Democrat, has vetoed three attempts to loosen the state law that limits enrollment in the program to 15% of Milwaukee's public school enrollment. This cap, put in place in 1995 as part of a compromise with anti-choice lawmakers backed by the unions, wasn't an issue when only a handful of schools were participating. But the program has grown steadily to include 127 schools and more than 14,000 students today. Wisconsin officials expect the voucher program to exceed the 15% threshold next year, which means Mr. Doyle's schoolhouse-door act is about to have real consequences.
"Had the cap been in effect this year," says Susan Mitchell of School Choice Wisconsin, "as many as 4,000 students already in the program would have lost seats. No new students could come in, and there would be dozens of schools that have been built because of school choice in Milwaukee that would close. They're in poor neighborhoods and would never have enough support from tuition-paying parents or donors to keep going."
There's no question the program has been a boon to the city's underprivileged. A 2004 study of high school graduation rates by Jay Greene of the Manhattan Institute found that students using vouchers to attend Milwaukee's private schools had a graduation rate of 64%, versus 36% for their public school counterparts. Harvard's Caroline Hoxby has shown that Milwaukee public schools have raised their standards in the wake of voucher competition.
Mr. Doyle says he will agree to lift the cap to 18%, but only if it's tied to a change in the school-aid formula that he knows would never pass the Republican legislature--particularly in an election year. So instead of building on this education success, Mr. Doyle and his union allies are poised to close the book.
The unions scored a separate "victory" in Florida three weeks ago when the state supreme court there struck down the Opportunity Scholarship Program. Passed in 1999, the program currently enrolls 700 children from chronically failing state schools, letting them transfer to another public school or use state money to attend a private school. Barring some legislative damage control, the 5-2 ruling means these kids face the horrible prospect of returning to the state's education hellholes next year. The decision is a textbook case of results-oriented jurisprudence. The majority claimed the program
violates a provision of Florida's constitution that requires the state to provide for "a uniform, efficient, safe, secure, and high quality system of free public schools." Because "private schools that are not 'uniform' when compared with each other or the public system" could receive state funds under the program, the majority deemed it unconstitutional.
This is beyond a legal stretch. Not only have courts in such states as Wisconsin and Ohio rejected similar bogus "uniformity" challenges to school voucher programs, but so have other Florida courts. The logic of the ruling could also apply to charter schools, which are public schools that are able to live by non-uniform rules. That's the entire point of school choice--to break out of the stifling monopoly that traps so many poor children in "uniformly" awful schools.
What the Milwaukee and Florida examples show is that unions and their allies are unwilling to let even successful voucher experiments continue to exist. If they lose one court case, they will sue again--and then again, as long as it takes. And they'll shop their campaign cash around for years until they find a politician like Jim Doyle willing to sell out Wisconsin's poorest kids in return for their endorsement. Is there a more destructive force in American public life?
District 41 Referendum - Same tale different district.
The same games are being played with children, families and taxpayers across Illinois. This time it is District 41 in Glen Ellyn and their building referenda. The below story appeared in The Sun Glen Ellyn. To view the site and LTE click on the title of this post.
It's same old story: 'Emperor has no clothes'
Remember the fairy tale story of the two deceitful tailors who see an opportunity and convince the emperor that they can create some fine new clothes for him? They "work" behind closed doors, spinning with invisible thread and reveal the fine new clothes. The only problem — no one can actually see the clothes, but they don't want to admit it because only fools can't see them, explain the tailors. Of course, we all know that no one can see them because they don't exist. This story is a good anecdote for the activities in recent years in District 41.
We've gotten a new "tailor," who seems very adept at spinning nothing into something very costly. He came to Glen Ellyn seeing the opportunity presented in the form of millions of tax dollars available because of the 2001 referendum. This new administrator hardly waited one second to unpack his bags before setting on the task of creating the need for and attempting to convince the citizens of that need for a new school building.
As far as I know, the definition of "overcrowded" has never been explained.
Is "overcrowding" planting mobile classrooms in our school fields like tulips and filling them with classes well below the amount of 24 to 26 students the community asked for? Does overcrowding occur when children are moved around schools like shells in a shell game, while specialists or teachers' lounges now command what used to be classrooms in the bricks-and-mortar buildings?
Does "overcrowding" occur when the pre-K program was moved out of rented space at the Main Street Rec Center and into a K-5 school building? There are many questions about the new but not-yet-approved fifth- and sixth-grade center: How much will it really cost us? When will this big, new school break the education fund bank and require yet another infusion of cash into the coffers of District 41? How much has already been spent in the quest for the fine new school?
... If the new building is approved and built, it is slated to open around the year 2009. Coincidentally, that is just about the time that Dr. Barshinger's contract runs out. Apparently, he has said that he will move out of his home near Hadley and move back to DeKalb. Similarly, the tailors left the emperor and the townspeople scratching their heads in the realization that it was because they didn't speak up when they could have that they were duped.
I know that there are others, like me, who don't mind saying publicly — or privately in the voting booth — that "the emperor has no clothes."
Monica Miller Glen Ellyn
It's same old story: 'Emperor has no clothes'
Remember the fairy tale story of the two deceitful tailors who see an opportunity and convince the emperor that they can create some fine new clothes for him? They "work" behind closed doors, spinning with invisible thread and reveal the fine new clothes. The only problem — no one can actually see the clothes, but they don't want to admit it because only fools can't see them, explain the tailors. Of course, we all know that no one can see them because they don't exist. This story is a good anecdote for the activities in recent years in District 41.
We've gotten a new "tailor," who seems very adept at spinning nothing into something very costly. He came to Glen Ellyn seeing the opportunity presented in the form of millions of tax dollars available because of the 2001 referendum. This new administrator hardly waited one second to unpack his bags before setting on the task of creating the need for and attempting to convince the citizens of that need for a new school building.
As far as I know, the definition of "overcrowded" has never been explained.
Is "overcrowding" planting mobile classrooms in our school fields like tulips and filling them with classes well below the amount of 24 to 26 students the community asked for? Does overcrowding occur when children are moved around schools like shells in a shell game, while specialists or teachers' lounges now command what used to be classrooms in the bricks-and-mortar buildings?
Does "overcrowding" occur when the pre-K program was moved out of rented space at the Main Street Rec Center and into a K-5 school building? There are many questions about the new but not-yet-approved fifth- and sixth-grade center: How much will it really cost us? When will this big, new school break the education fund bank and require yet another infusion of cash into the coffers of District 41? How much has already been spent in the quest for the fine new school?
... If the new building is approved and built, it is slated to open around the year 2009. Coincidentally, that is just about the time that Dr. Barshinger's contract runs out. Apparently, he has said that he will move out of his home near Hadley and move back to DeKalb. Similarly, the tailors left the emperor and the townspeople scratching their heads in the realization that it was because they didn't speak up when they could have that they were duped.
I know that there are others, like me, who don't mind saying publicly — or privately in the voting booth — that "the emperor has no clothes."
Monica Miller Glen Ellyn
Thursday, February 02, 2006
Why one parent is voting No on the D-300 referenda.
The District 300 referendum is a passionate issue with emotions running high on both sides. Although, my views will support a “no” vote, my interest in getting involved is to simply provide transparency and clarity. The decision of how to vote is, of course, yours to make. State Senator (and Lt. Governor Candidate) Steven Rauschenberger (R-Elgin) said recently at a campaign forum in Huntley that today’s school districts “…are seemingly run for the benefit of the adults working within it.” What I have found thus far seems to support his view.
My concerns with this referendum are twofold:
1) In my view, District 300 has not provided what I consider a quality education for my children and has not demonstrated fiscal self-discipline. Simply throwing more money at a problem doesn’t solve it.
2) I suspect there is more to the Advance300 organization than what they would like you to believe.
My research into Advance300 (formerly Schools for Now Dist. # 300 Committee) began in mid-January after I visited their website. I was impressed by its construction and concluded immediately that it was professionally produced (i.e. expensive). I emailed them and asked very specific questions:
1) Would you provide me a list of your leadership and members?
2) How are you funded?
3) Who created and paid for the website?
I received a response from Nancy Zettler (who serves on District 300’s Community Finance Committee), who identified herself as co-chair with Douglas Sibery. Her response was evasive at best, stating that… “Advance 300 is a growing coalition of several hundred parents, grandparents, students, business owners, community leaders and other community members dedicated to providing our children the excellent education they deserve and ensuring the health and strength of our communities… We are funded by donations. The website was put together by a hard-working, dedicated group of Advance 300 volunteers who have worked very hard for several hundred man-hours researching dozens of sources of information for accuracy, truthfulness and relevance.” My impression was that is their standard response to all inquiries which was likely created with professional assistance.
Ms. Zettler’s comment stating the website was created by volunteers is not truthful. According to their Schedule B document filed with the Illinois State Board of Elections on January 31, $7,000.00 was paid to M&R Strategic Services of Washington, DC for “web site services” on December 19, 2005. In M&R’s website, their self-description is, “For over 15 years, M+R has been helping groups we believe in (notice the phrase, “we believe in”) accomplish their policy and organizational goals... we provide integrated strategy, field organizing, communications, lobbying, direct mail, web production, online advocacy and fundraising services.” A review of their client list reveals the groups they “believe in” point toward a far left political philosophy naming clients such as The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, International Planned Parenthood/Western Hemisphere, The Lesbian, Gay and Transgender Community Center of New York and People for the American Way.
As instructed on M&R’s website, I also requested a list of their “electoral” clients from Ms. Debra Rosen, Senior Consultant. As of February 2nd, I have received no response from her. Incidentally, Advance300’s Schedule B also reveals $6,750.00 was paid to Campaign Solutions of Algonquin for “referendum consulting”. Campaign Solutions has a P.O. Box for an address and has no phone number listed in the Internet Yellow Pages. Last time I checked, volunteers are not paid for their services, and I wonder who owns that company.
District 300 cannot legally financially support Advance300 directly, even though it appears they have hired (with taxpayer funds?) St. Louis based public relations firm Unicom.ARC. As of February 1, a request from Unicom to confirm this has been unanswered.
On January 20, Northwest Herald Reporter Allison Smith published an article on a meeting she attended with District 300 Superintendent Ken Arndt, “about” 25 builders and real estate agents, as well as village officials from Algonquin, West Dundee and Hampshire to raise $153,000 (the minimum amount needed to fund a successful referendum according to Unicom.ARC). As Allison points out in her article, “The campaign money, administered by the Advance 300 citizens group, will pay for an office, mailings, T-shirts, yard signs, TV and radio ads, and possibly even billboards.” Cal Skinner’s blog site, McHenry County Blog (mchenrycountyblog.com), has recently detailed the extent of the pro-referendum contributions that have rolled in (and who they are from). Keep scrolling down until you find them (there are several posts on this topic) or if you prefer, I can send you copies. Check back there often.
Another topic worthy of discussion is District 300’s handling of its finances. Besides the issue of having $38 million available in its working fund to cover the $27 million deficit in the education fund (which the District claims it cannot use because its in a trust and is needed to ease cash flow problems between property tax receipts), were you aware that in 2003, the District had to repay the U.S. Dept. of Education $607,908.06 for violating the terms of a grant that was provided to support the effort to serve limited English proficient students? According to the Federal Register, the funds "...had been used for improper or unsupported expenditures for personnel, fringe benefits, travel, supplies, training and other items."
I personally spoke with the contact person from the D.O.E. for this matter, who verified this information as correct. I have a copy of the Federal Register document as well and was informed by the D.O.E. contact person that District 300 has a copy of the settlement agreement. Also, because of current loopholes in property tax law, we must take the District at their word that the 55 cents/$100 they are asking for the education fund will only be used for the current tax year. State Rep. Michael Tryon (R-Crystal Lake) has introduced legislation in Springfield to close these loopholes. However, even if passed, it will not be in place in time for our referendum.
Although Advance300 portrays itself as a local grassroots organization, it is clear what we have here is a well calculated, well financed and covert public relations effort on the part of District 300 to win this referendum. The deplorable tactic of using our children as pawns to accomplish their desire is nothing short of extortion. I personally don’t believe for a minute that all extracurricular activities will be cut if the referendum fails. The amount of money spent on athletics and music amounts to approximately 1% of the budget and I assure you, no elected school board official who is interested in retaining their office would ever be re-elected if that happened and the public outcry for Superintendent Arndt’s resignation would be immediate. Also, don’t believe the myth that our home values will decline if the referendum fails. Simply ask yourself how much your home has risen in value over the past several years since the last referendum was voted down?
Although my views on this referendum are unmistakable, I hope you can see that my opinion is based upon objective, verified information — not less than truthful rhetoric designed to play on your fears and emotions. Please pass this along to others who are interested, regardless of what their present opinion may be. Besides the McHenry County Blog, I encourage you to visit the web sites of The Family Taxpayer’s Network (thechampion.org) and Citizen’s For Fair and Reasonable Taxes (http://user.mc.net/~igloo/craft.htm). Please feel free to contact me and I will do my best to keep you informed.
Sincerely,
John Ryan
Committeeman
Precinct 62
Algonquin Township
My concerns with this referendum are twofold:
1) In my view, District 300 has not provided what I consider a quality education for my children and has not demonstrated fiscal self-discipline. Simply throwing more money at a problem doesn’t solve it.
2) I suspect there is more to the Advance300 organization than what they would like you to believe.
My research into Advance300 (formerly Schools for Now Dist. # 300 Committee) began in mid-January after I visited their website. I was impressed by its construction and concluded immediately that it was professionally produced (i.e. expensive). I emailed them and asked very specific questions:
1) Would you provide me a list of your leadership and members?
2) How are you funded?
3) Who created and paid for the website?
I received a response from Nancy Zettler (who serves on District 300’s Community Finance Committee), who identified herself as co-chair with Douglas Sibery. Her response was evasive at best, stating that… “Advance 300 is a growing coalition of several hundred parents, grandparents, students, business owners, community leaders and other community members dedicated to providing our children the excellent education they deserve and ensuring the health and strength of our communities… We are funded by donations. The website was put together by a hard-working, dedicated group of Advance 300 volunteers who have worked very hard for several hundred man-hours researching dozens of sources of information for accuracy, truthfulness and relevance.” My impression was that is their standard response to all inquiries which was likely created with professional assistance.
Ms. Zettler’s comment stating the website was created by volunteers is not truthful. According to their Schedule B document filed with the Illinois State Board of Elections on January 31, $7,000.00 was paid to M&R Strategic Services of Washington, DC for “web site services” on December 19, 2005. In M&R’s website, their self-description is, “For over 15 years, M+R has been helping groups we believe in (notice the phrase, “we believe in”) accomplish their policy and organizational goals... we provide integrated strategy, field organizing, communications, lobbying, direct mail, web production, online advocacy and fundraising services.” A review of their client list reveals the groups they “believe in” point toward a far left political philosophy naming clients such as The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, International Planned Parenthood/Western Hemisphere, The Lesbian, Gay and Transgender Community Center of New York and People for the American Way.
As instructed on M&R’s website, I also requested a list of their “electoral” clients from Ms. Debra Rosen, Senior Consultant. As of February 2nd, I have received no response from her. Incidentally, Advance300’s Schedule B also reveals $6,750.00 was paid to Campaign Solutions of Algonquin for “referendum consulting”. Campaign Solutions has a P.O. Box for an address and has no phone number listed in the Internet Yellow Pages. Last time I checked, volunteers are not paid for their services, and I wonder who owns that company.
District 300 cannot legally financially support Advance300 directly, even though it appears they have hired (with taxpayer funds?) St. Louis based public relations firm Unicom.ARC. As of February 1, a request from Unicom to confirm this has been unanswered.
On January 20, Northwest Herald Reporter Allison Smith published an article on a meeting she attended with District 300 Superintendent Ken Arndt, “about” 25 builders and real estate agents, as well as village officials from Algonquin, West Dundee and Hampshire to raise $153,000 (the minimum amount needed to fund a successful referendum according to Unicom.ARC). As Allison points out in her article, “The campaign money, administered by the Advance 300 citizens group, will pay for an office, mailings, T-shirts, yard signs, TV and radio ads, and possibly even billboards.” Cal Skinner’s blog site, McHenry County Blog (mchenrycountyblog.com), has recently detailed the extent of the pro-referendum contributions that have rolled in (and who they are from). Keep scrolling down until you find them (there are several posts on this topic) or if you prefer, I can send you copies. Check back there often.
Another topic worthy of discussion is District 300’s handling of its finances. Besides the issue of having $38 million available in its working fund to cover the $27 million deficit in the education fund (which the District claims it cannot use because its in a trust and is needed to ease cash flow problems between property tax receipts), were you aware that in 2003, the District had to repay the U.S. Dept. of Education $607,908.06 for violating the terms of a grant that was provided to support the effort to serve limited English proficient students? According to the Federal Register, the funds "...had been used for improper or unsupported expenditures for personnel, fringe benefits, travel, supplies, training and other items."
I personally spoke with the contact person from the D.O.E. for this matter, who verified this information as correct. I have a copy of the Federal Register document as well and was informed by the D.O.E. contact person that District 300 has a copy of the settlement agreement. Also, because of current loopholes in property tax law, we must take the District at their word that the 55 cents/$100 they are asking for the education fund will only be used for the current tax year. State Rep. Michael Tryon (R-Crystal Lake) has introduced legislation in Springfield to close these loopholes. However, even if passed, it will not be in place in time for our referendum.
Although Advance300 portrays itself as a local grassroots organization, it is clear what we have here is a well calculated, well financed and covert public relations effort on the part of District 300 to win this referendum. The deplorable tactic of using our children as pawns to accomplish their desire is nothing short of extortion. I personally don’t believe for a minute that all extracurricular activities will be cut if the referendum fails. The amount of money spent on athletics and music amounts to approximately 1% of the budget and I assure you, no elected school board official who is interested in retaining their office would ever be re-elected if that happened and the public outcry for Superintendent Arndt’s resignation would be immediate. Also, don’t believe the myth that our home values will decline if the referendum fails. Simply ask yourself how much your home has risen in value over the past several years since the last referendum was voted down?
Although my views on this referendum are unmistakable, I hope you can see that my opinion is based upon objective, verified information — not less than truthful rhetoric designed to play on your fears and emotions. Please pass this along to others who are interested, regardless of what their present opinion may be. Besides the McHenry County Blog, I encourage you to visit the web sites of The Family Taxpayer’s Network (thechampion.org) and Citizen’s For Fair and Reasonable Taxes (http://user.mc.net/~igloo/craft.htm). Please feel free to contact me and I will do my best to keep you informed.
Sincerely,
John Ryan
Committeeman
Precinct 62
Algonquin Township
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
Yorkville School Distict Referendum
This post will be used to Discuss the Yorkville School District Referendum. Feel free to post your comments. The below articles where posted on the Beacon News website .
Not a terrible parent
The Yorkville School District referendum is turning neighbor against neighbor because folks are making it personal. I do not believe that anybody against the referendum believes that the school system does not need more money. They just believe, as I do, that the way to get the money is not through increased property taxes on existing homes. Yes, there are an abundant number of new families moving to the area and those children need to be schooled. The way to pay for those schools is to include that cost in the cost of all the new housing going up, not through increasing existing property taxes. The School Board can't seem to figure out why what they do comes across as a threat to most of us decent parents and residents. It is because it is. To close the schools for all activities is an absolute threat. Stopping extracurricular activities may be needed, but to close the publicly funded properties to the community is a threat for no other reason than to scare folks in to voting for this proposal. Why not say that anyone using the school will have to pay the true cost of using the facility or even a little more? That didn't seem to enter the conversation. There are always many options if you dig deep enough. Increasing taxes is just the easiest answer.
I am personally really, really sick of hearing what a terrible parent I am because I oppose the referendum. Sorry, but I volunteer to coach basketball, baseball and soccer.
Randy Cavanaugh
Bristol
The article below appeared on the Beacon News website.
Aldermen balk at school referendum
• Possible tax hike: City Council member says it's not his job to take a public position
By Heather Gillers
Staff Writer
YORKVILLE — Drawing criticism from Mayor Art Prochaska, four members of the City Council refused to take a position this week on a plan to increase taxes to fund the city's schools.
Voters here will decide in two March 21 referenda whether the Yorkville School District will raise property taxes to help support a skyrocketing student population.
Aldermen this week debated a resolution lending official support to the tax increase, which school officials say is crucial.
But half the City Council — Aldermen Joseph Besco, Dean Wolfer, Rose Spears and Marty Munns — declined to take a public position. Only Aldermen Valerie Burd, Paul James and Wanda Ohare voted in favor of the resolution, which passed with three yes votes and four abstentions. (Alderman Jason Leslie was absent.)
Prochaska, who favors the tax increase, criticized the majority abstention.
"Part of the idea of being on a government board is you're there to give an opinion," he said.
But Besco suggested that informing constituents about his position on an issue outside the city's jurisdiction is not part of an alderman's job description.
"I didn't think that we should have to tell the people that we support it or oppose it," he said. "I didn't think that's our place."
Meanwhile, "mixed feelings" prompted Spears to hold her tongue. The alderman said she feels conflicted about supporting the tax hike.
"I know how important it is," she said. "However, many, many seniors cannot afford an increase in taxes."
Taxes on a $250,000 home would rise by a maximum of $607 if both referenda pass in March, said School Superintendent Thomas Engler.
One referendum calls for a $56 million bond issue to pay for the construction of three schools. The other calls for a tax increase to help the district staff and operate the new buildings, along with Grande Reserve Elementary School, which was built by developers.
School official say the district needs more money to cope with more and more children entering Yorkville schools. The district's student body has grown 73 percent in the past nine years, Engler said. Since school started this past September, 120 new students have enrolled.
Moreover, while experts recommend that classes contain a maximum of 22 students, some classes in the Yorkville district have more than 40 students, Engler said.
01/12/06
Not a terrible parent
The Yorkville School District referendum is turning neighbor against neighbor because folks are making it personal. I do not believe that anybody against the referendum believes that the school system does not need more money. They just believe, as I do, that the way to get the money is not through increased property taxes on existing homes. Yes, there are an abundant number of new families moving to the area and those children need to be schooled. The way to pay for those schools is to include that cost in the cost of all the new housing going up, not through increasing existing property taxes. The School Board can't seem to figure out why what they do comes across as a threat to most of us decent parents and residents. It is because it is. To close the schools for all activities is an absolute threat. Stopping extracurricular activities may be needed, but to close the publicly funded properties to the community is a threat for no other reason than to scare folks in to voting for this proposal. Why not say that anyone using the school will have to pay the true cost of using the facility or even a little more? That didn't seem to enter the conversation. There are always many options if you dig deep enough. Increasing taxes is just the easiest answer.
I am personally really, really sick of hearing what a terrible parent I am because I oppose the referendum. Sorry, but I volunteer to coach basketball, baseball and soccer.
Randy Cavanaugh
Bristol
The article below appeared on the Beacon News website.
Aldermen balk at school referendum
• Possible tax hike: City Council member says it's not his job to take a public position
By Heather Gillers
Staff Writer
YORKVILLE — Drawing criticism from Mayor Art Prochaska, four members of the City Council refused to take a position this week on a plan to increase taxes to fund the city's schools.
Voters here will decide in two March 21 referenda whether the Yorkville School District will raise property taxes to help support a skyrocketing student population.
Aldermen this week debated a resolution lending official support to the tax increase, which school officials say is crucial.
But half the City Council — Aldermen Joseph Besco, Dean Wolfer, Rose Spears and Marty Munns — declined to take a public position. Only Aldermen Valerie Burd, Paul James and Wanda Ohare voted in favor of the resolution, which passed with three yes votes and four abstentions. (Alderman Jason Leslie was absent.)
Prochaska, who favors the tax increase, criticized the majority abstention.
"Part of the idea of being on a government board is you're there to give an opinion," he said.
But Besco suggested that informing constituents about his position on an issue outside the city's jurisdiction is not part of an alderman's job description.
"I didn't think that we should have to tell the people that we support it or oppose it," he said. "I didn't think that's our place."
Meanwhile, "mixed feelings" prompted Spears to hold her tongue. The alderman said she feels conflicted about supporting the tax hike.
"I know how important it is," she said. "However, many, many seniors cannot afford an increase in taxes."
Taxes on a $250,000 home would rise by a maximum of $607 if both referenda pass in March, said School Superintendent Thomas Engler.
One referendum calls for a $56 million bond issue to pay for the construction of three schools. The other calls for a tax increase to help the district staff and operate the new buildings, along with Grande Reserve Elementary School, which was built by developers.
School official say the district needs more money to cope with more and more children entering Yorkville schools. The district's student body has grown 73 percent in the past nine years, Engler said. Since school started this past September, 120 new students have enrolled.
Moreover, while experts recommend that classes contain a maximum of 22 students, some classes in the Yorkville district have more than 40 students, Engler said.
01/12/06
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
The Educational State of the Union
The below post appeared at www.foxnews.com.
The Educational State of the Union
Friday, January 27, 2006
By Andrew J. Coulson
It's the night of the State of the Union address. President Bush ascends to the podium, waits for the polite applause to die down, and says this: "Education has never been a national responsibility in our country, and school systems should not be operated by an agency in Washington."
Jaws drop.
Not the sort of thing our 43rd president is likely to say? Too reactionary? Too paleo-conservative? Au contraire.
The cited words are those of the late Albert Shanker, erstwhile president of the American Federation of Teachers, spoken back in 1978 in opposition to the creation of the Department of Education.
Shanker was right.
Powers not accorded to Congress by the Constitution are reserved, by the 10th Amendment, to the states and the people. As it happens, the U.S. Constitution mentions neither the word education nor the word school. Doesn’t even allude to them.
The public's education is thus properly a matter for citizens and their elected officials at the state and local level. Federal courts must ensure that state education policies do not violate the rights of the people, but Congress lacks the constitutional mandate to set those policies.
But it isn’t just a matter of constitutionality: Top-down central planning in education robs teachers of their professional autonomy and parents of their freedom and responsibility. It hobbles the ability of schools to cater to students’ varied needs, and prevents families from obtaining the kind and quality of instruction they seek.
The greatest thing George W. Bush could do for American education in his State of Union address would be to renounce unconstitutional and destructive federal meddling with the nation’s schools.
Step one would be to ask for the repeal of his own No Child Left Behind law that unconstitutionally substitutes the judgment of federal officials for that of parents and state legislators. Encouraging Congress to dissolve the Department of Education, President Carter’s post-election thank you gift to the National Education Association, would be a helpful second step.
But these are mere correctives. A State of the Union address should be forward-looking and visionary.
President Bush should therefore issue a wake-up call to the American people, explaining the harm we have done by delegating our educational responsibilities to ever higher and more remote levels of government -- from marginalizing parents to shortchanging the poor.
Our nation was not built on a foundation of federal, or even state-level, intervention in schooling. It was founded on locally operated independent and semi-public schools that were directly responsible to the families they served.
Even in the old semi-public schools, parents who were financially able were expected to directly cover some of the cost of their own children's education. This combination of parental responsibility and parental choice led to high levels of engagement. Parents not only hired the teachers in many cases, but selected textbooks as well. They had to take charge because there was no nanny state promising (however unrealistically) to relieve them of their educational duties.
The parental disengagement about which many public school teachers complain is an inevitable side effect of an education monopoly that gives parents no role other than to point their children toward the school bus in the morning.
Nor has our increasingly centralized approach to schooling served the interests of the poor. Though many inner city public school districts from Detroit to DC spend $12,000 to $16,000 per pupil annually, their performance is often abysmal.
The problem with these systems is not the monetary poverty of the parents but rather the poverty of our own -- and our policymakers' -- imaginations.
When given the chance, low income families make better educational decisions for their own children than state-appointed bureaucrats make on their behalf. Similarly, autonomous educators competing for the right to serve students are far more responsive to families’ needs than those laboring in protected monopolies to which students are automatically assigned.
Numerous studies have found this to be true, both in America's small parental choice plans and in larger programs operating abroad. A recent Cato Institute paper by professors James Tooley and Pauline Dixon found that parent-chosen independent schools in some of the poorest slums and rural villages of the third world are outperforming the local government schools -- and at a fraction of the cost.
Poverty is not a sign of parental incompetence. Conversely, by locking America's low-income population into an inflexible government monopoly, we have willfully perpetuated an economic and educational underclass.
The president should exhort his fellow citizens to right these wrongs, and to re-take control over their children's education. He should ask them, though their state representatives, to pass legislation empowering all families to choose the independent or government schools they deem best.
Until that happens, the Union’s educational systems will remain in a sorry state indeed.
Andrew Coulson is director of the Center for Educational Freedom at the Cato Institute.
The Educational State of the Union
Friday, January 27, 2006
By Andrew J. Coulson
It's the night of the State of the Union address. President Bush ascends to the podium, waits for the polite applause to die down, and says this: "Education has never been a national responsibility in our country, and school systems should not be operated by an agency in Washington."
Jaws drop.
Not the sort of thing our 43rd president is likely to say? Too reactionary? Too paleo-conservative? Au contraire.
The cited words are those of the late Albert Shanker, erstwhile president of the American Federation of Teachers, spoken back in 1978 in opposition to the creation of the Department of Education.
Shanker was right.
Powers not accorded to Congress by the Constitution are reserved, by the 10th Amendment, to the states and the people. As it happens, the U.S. Constitution mentions neither the word education nor the word school. Doesn’t even allude to them.
The public's education is thus properly a matter for citizens and their elected officials at the state and local level. Federal courts must ensure that state education policies do not violate the rights of the people, but Congress lacks the constitutional mandate to set those policies.
But it isn’t just a matter of constitutionality: Top-down central planning in education robs teachers of their professional autonomy and parents of their freedom and responsibility. It hobbles the ability of schools to cater to students’ varied needs, and prevents families from obtaining the kind and quality of instruction they seek.
The greatest thing George W. Bush could do for American education in his State of Union address would be to renounce unconstitutional and destructive federal meddling with the nation’s schools.
Step one would be to ask for the repeal of his own No Child Left Behind law that unconstitutionally substitutes the judgment of federal officials for that of parents and state legislators. Encouraging Congress to dissolve the Department of Education, President Carter’s post-election thank you gift to the National Education Association, would be a helpful second step.
But these are mere correctives. A State of the Union address should be forward-looking and visionary.
President Bush should therefore issue a wake-up call to the American people, explaining the harm we have done by delegating our educational responsibilities to ever higher and more remote levels of government -- from marginalizing parents to shortchanging the poor.
Our nation was not built on a foundation of federal, or even state-level, intervention in schooling. It was founded on locally operated independent and semi-public schools that were directly responsible to the families they served.
Even in the old semi-public schools, parents who were financially able were expected to directly cover some of the cost of their own children's education. This combination of parental responsibility and parental choice led to high levels of engagement. Parents not only hired the teachers in many cases, but selected textbooks as well. They had to take charge because there was no nanny state promising (however unrealistically) to relieve them of their educational duties.
The parental disengagement about which many public school teachers complain is an inevitable side effect of an education monopoly that gives parents no role other than to point their children toward the school bus in the morning.
Nor has our increasingly centralized approach to schooling served the interests of the poor. Though many inner city public school districts from Detroit to DC spend $12,000 to $16,000 per pupil annually, their performance is often abysmal.
The problem with these systems is not the monetary poverty of the parents but rather the poverty of our own -- and our policymakers' -- imaginations.
When given the chance, low income families make better educational decisions for their own children than state-appointed bureaucrats make on their behalf. Similarly, autonomous educators competing for the right to serve students are far more responsive to families’ needs than those laboring in protected monopolies to which students are automatically assigned.
Numerous studies have found this to be true, both in America's small parental choice plans and in larger programs operating abroad. A recent Cato Institute paper by professors James Tooley and Pauline Dixon found that parent-chosen independent schools in some of the poorest slums and rural villages of the third world are outperforming the local government schools -- and at a fraction of the cost.
Poverty is not a sign of parental incompetence. Conversely, by locking America's low-income population into an inflexible government monopoly, we have willfully perpetuated an economic and educational underclass.
The president should exhort his fellow citizens to right these wrongs, and to re-take control over their children's education. He should ask them, though their state representatives, to pass legislation empowering all families to choose the independent or government schools they deem best.
Until that happens, the Union’s educational systems will remain in a sorry state indeed.
Andrew Coulson is director of the Center for Educational Freedom at the Cato Institute.
D-26: No need for revenue boost now
The below article appeared in the Northwest Herald. It is great to have Kevin Craver back safely and reporting again for the Northwest Herald. He is one of the shining stars of the Northwest Herald. To view this article click on the title of this post. This is one of the few school boards in the over 800 school boards in Illinois that is opposed to tax increases. It is too bad that all Illinois residents can not have a responsible school board like this one running their school district.
D-26: No need for revenue boost now
[published on Mon, Jan 30, 2006]
By KEVIN P. CRAVER
kcraver@nwherald.com
CARY – Despite a possible deficit and possible borrowing against future tax dollars, District 26 school board members said it was too early to forecast a budget problem.
And with a solid majority of the board staunchly opposed to tax increases, and with a likelihood that voters would reject one, the district has no plans for a referendum anytime soon.
"Basically, we want to make sure that we take a good look at how the district is being run prior to going down a path saying that we need additional revenue from the taxpayers at this point in time," board President Craig Loew said.
But the numbers halfway through the district's current fiscal year hint at possible problems to come.
The district could run a $1.9 million deficit by the end of the year as a worst-case scenario and could issue up to $6 million in tax-anticipation warrants, Chief Financial Officer Andrea Gorla has said. The warrants are a way to borrow money at low interest rates against the next year's tax receipts.
Loew said school board members barely had discussed issuing the warrants.
If they do, it would be to ensure a steady cash flow and not because of a budget crisis, Loew said. The district had about $2 million in operating revenue in April, when the board issued $4.5 million in tax-anticipation warrants.
"The sheer fact we are taking tax-anticipation warrants does not mean we are in a true deficit position," he said.
Making ends meet without asking taxpayers for more money was a cornerstone of the April 2005 election that swept Loew and three other newcomers onto the board. A one-week teachers' strike in 2002 resulted in a contract that critics said the district couldn't afford, and 23 teachers were laid off after a 2004 education-fund referendum was clobbered by a 2-1 margin. The district cut programs and closed Oak Knoll School.
The current teachers contract expires at the end of this school year, Gorla said.
Board members are creating a new citizens financial advisory committee to help determine where money should be spent and saved, and to help communicate the budget process to residents.
"I think we have to dig in, and if costs are rising faster than our revenue, we have to figure out which costs are rising and how we should manage it," board member Chris Jenner said.
About 75 percent of the budget covers salaries and benefits, with 10 percent or so going to building operations and maintenance, Gorla said.
D-26: No need for revenue boost now
[published on Mon, Jan 30, 2006]
By KEVIN P. CRAVER
kcraver@nwherald.com
CARY – Despite a possible deficit and possible borrowing against future tax dollars, District 26 school board members said it was too early to forecast a budget problem.
And with a solid majority of the board staunchly opposed to tax increases, and with a likelihood that voters would reject one, the district has no plans for a referendum anytime soon.
"Basically, we want to make sure that we take a good look at how the district is being run prior to going down a path saying that we need additional revenue from the taxpayers at this point in time," board President Craig Loew said.
But the numbers halfway through the district's current fiscal year hint at possible problems to come.
The district could run a $1.9 million deficit by the end of the year as a worst-case scenario and could issue up to $6 million in tax-anticipation warrants, Chief Financial Officer Andrea Gorla has said. The warrants are a way to borrow money at low interest rates against the next year's tax receipts.
Loew said school board members barely had discussed issuing the warrants.
If they do, it would be to ensure a steady cash flow and not because of a budget crisis, Loew said. The district had about $2 million in operating revenue in April, when the board issued $4.5 million in tax-anticipation warrants.
"The sheer fact we are taking tax-anticipation warrants does not mean we are in a true deficit position," he said.
Making ends meet without asking taxpayers for more money was a cornerstone of the April 2005 election that swept Loew and three other newcomers onto the board. A one-week teachers' strike in 2002 resulted in a contract that critics said the district couldn't afford, and 23 teachers were laid off after a 2004 education-fund referendum was clobbered by a 2-1 margin. The district cut programs and closed Oak Knoll School.
The current teachers contract expires at the end of this school year, Gorla said.
Board members are creating a new citizens financial advisory committee to help determine where money should be spent and saved, and to help communicate the budget process to residents.
"I think we have to dig in, and if costs are rising faster than our revenue, we have to figure out which costs are rising and how we should manage it," board member Chris Jenner said.
About 75 percent of the budget covers salaries and benefits, with 10 percent or so going to building operations and maintenance, Gorla said.
Sunday, January 29, 2006
Tenure series inspires legislation
Please encourage your legislators to support this bill. The great article below was written by Scott Reeder and was published on Quad-Cities Online.
Posted online: January 19, 2006 8:50 PM
Print publication date: January 20, 2006
Tenure series inspires legislation
By Scott Reeder, sreeder@qconline.com
SPRINGFIELD -- State Sen. Todd Sieben introduced legislation Thursday that he said will enhance school accountability and improve teacher quality.
The Geneseo Republican said his legislation was inspired by The Hidden Costs of Tenure, an investigative report conducted by Small Newspaper Group that focused on accountability issues in the public schools. Small Newspaper Group owns The Dispatch and The Rock Island Argus.
"That report showed that the consequences of a student having a bad teacher can be severe," Sen. Sieben said. "We need to do something about this. Our children deserve better. I think if we have better disclosure of information, some of these problems in schools can be better addressed."
One finding in the report is that teacher job-performance evaluations rarely result in ineffective teachers leaving the profession. Only one out of 930 evaluations of tenured teachers results in an unsatisfactory rating.
"I think a lot of parents and school-board members aren't aware that bad teachers are receiving good job evaluations. This bill would force administrators to report the number of teachers rated excellent, satisfactory and unsatisfactory at the end of each school year," Sen. Sieben said.
"If a parent or board member knows of an underperforming teacher and later sees that all of the teachers in the district have been rated 'excellent' they can say, 'Wait a minute -- something needs to be done."
Sen. Sieben also introduced legislation that would force school districts to disclose financial terms of settlement agreements in cases in which teachers are paid to resign.
The newspaper group's investigation found that because it often can cost a school district more than $100,000 in attorney fees alone to attempt to fire a teacher, some school boards have resorted to secret agreements in which teachers are paid to resign.
Both of the state's major teacher unions, the Illinois Federation of Teachers and the Illinois Education Association, routinely insist the terms of the settlement agreements remain confidential.
"That's just not right. This is taxpayer money and we ought know how it is spent," Sen. Sieben said.
The Illinois Business Roundtable and the Illinois Press Association are lobbying for the passage of the measures.
The Business Roundtable is a public policy group made up of the chief executive officers of Illinois' largest companies. The Illinois Press Association is a coalition of the state's newspapers.
"These bills are about the public's right to know how their schools are being run and how their tax dollars are being spent. We very definitely will lobby for the passage of this legislation," said David Bennett, executive director of the press association.
Jeff Mays, president of the Roundtable, said members of his group are frustrated that the state's system of evaluating teachers is having little impact on teacher quality.
"Job performance evaluations should be a tool for improving teachers. But even though school districts across the state have devoted millions of hours to evaluating teachers, we don't see a discernible improvement in teacher quality," he said. "Study after study has shown that teacher quality is the most important factor in whether a student learns."
Mr. Mays said that there is a great deal of frustration that school administrators have been unwilling or unable to address the problem.
The Small Newspaper Group report found that of an estimated 95,500 tenured teachers in Illinois, only an average of two per year are fired on grounds of poor performance and only five are dismissed for issues of misconduct.
The investigation also found that 93 percent of Illinois school districts have never even recommended the dismissal of any tenured teacher in the last 18 years.
Sen. Sieben, who is married to a public school teacher, said common sense would indicate there are more under-performing teachers in the state than these statistics would indicate.
"We owe it to the good teachers out there to do something about this problem," he said.
Mr. Mays said he anticipates Sieben's measures will face stiff opposition from lobbyists for both major teacher unions.
A spokesman for the Illinois Education Association declined to comment on the legislation Thursday. Representatives of the Illinois Federation of Teachers did not return telephone calls seeking comment.
To read the entire series, go to http://thehiddencostsoftenure.com.
Posted online: January 19, 2006 8:50 PM
Print publication date: January 20, 2006
Tenure series inspires legislation
By Scott Reeder, sreeder@qconline.com
SPRINGFIELD -- State Sen. Todd Sieben introduced legislation Thursday that he said will enhance school accountability and improve teacher quality.
The Geneseo Republican said his legislation was inspired by The Hidden Costs of Tenure, an investigative report conducted by Small Newspaper Group that focused on accountability issues in the public schools. Small Newspaper Group owns The Dispatch and The Rock Island Argus.
"That report showed that the consequences of a student having a bad teacher can be severe," Sen. Sieben said. "We need to do something about this. Our children deserve better. I think if we have better disclosure of information, some of these problems in schools can be better addressed."
One finding in the report is that teacher job-performance evaluations rarely result in ineffective teachers leaving the profession. Only one out of 930 evaluations of tenured teachers results in an unsatisfactory rating.
"I think a lot of parents and school-board members aren't aware that bad teachers are receiving good job evaluations. This bill would force administrators to report the number of teachers rated excellent, satisfactory and unsatisfactory at the end of each school year," Sen. Sieben said.
"If a parent or board member knows of an underperforming teacher and later sees that all of the teachers in the district have been rated 'excellent' they can say, 'Wait a minute -- something needs to be done."
Sen. Sieben also introduced legislation that would force school districts to disclose financial terms of settlement agreements in cases in which teachers are paid to resign.
The newspaper group's investigation found that because it often can cost a school district more than $100,000 in attorney fees alone to attempt to fire a teacher, some school boards have resorted to secret agreements in which teachers are paid to resign.
Both of the state's major teacher unions, the Illinois Federation of Teachers and the Illinois Education Association, routinely insist the terms of the settlement agreements remain confidential.
"That's just not right. This is taxpayer money and we ought know how it is spent," Sen. Sieben said.
The Illinois Business Roundtable and the Illinois Press Association are lobbying for the passage of the measures.
The Business Roundtable is a public policy group made up of the chief executive officers of Illinois' largest companies. The Illinois Press Association is a coalition of the state's newspapers.
"These bills are about the public's right to know how their schools are being run and how their tax dollars are being spent. We very definitely will lobby for the passage of this legislation," said David Bennett, executive director of the press association.
Jeff Mays, president of the Roundtable, said members of his group are frustrated that the state's system of evaluating teachers is having little impact on teacher quality.
"Job performance evaluations should be a tool for improving teachers. But even though school districts across the state have devoted millions of hours to evaluating teachers, we don't see a discernible improvement in teacher quality," he said. "Study after study has shown that teacher quality is the most important factor in whether a student learns."
Mr. Mays said that there is a great deal of frustration that school administrators have been unwilling or unable to address the problem.
The Small Newspaper Group report found that of an estimated 95,500 tenured teachers in Illinois, only an average of two per year are fired on grounds of poor performance and only five are dismissed for issues of misconduct.
The investigation also found that 93 percent of Illinois school districts have never even recommended the dismissal of any tenured teacher in the last 18 years.
Sen. Sieben, who is married to a public school teacher, said common sense would indicate there are more under-performing teachers in the state than these statistics would indicate.
"We owe it to the good teachers out there to do something about this problem," he said.
Mr. Mays said he anticipates Sieben's measures will face stiff opposition from lobbyists for both major teacher unions.
A spokesman for the Illinois Education Association declined to comment on the legislation Thursday. Representatives of the Illinois Federation of Teachers did not return telephone calls seeking comment.
To read the entire series, go to http://thehiddencostsoftenure.com.
Saturday, January 28, 2006
Nine ways that legislators could control school spending.
The letter below was sent to Representative Mike Tryon in response to Senate Bill 1682. Senate Bill 1682 is a Bill that will lead to making clear the true costs of referenda to voters. Below Mr. Speer points out that this is merely a band aid for the cancer of school spending and suggests nine ways to control public school spending. It should be noted that the Illinois Association of School Boards (IASB) opposes this Bill. I think it is safe to assume that the IASB does not want the voter to truly know how much a tax increase will cost a voter. Yet another reason to continue to oppose all education referenda. May we suggest you edit this letter below to fit your needs and and send it on to your Senators and Representative.
My Dear Sir,
I am an Illinois resident, living in Lake County and working as a financial advisor to Illinois (and Indiana) Counties, Cities, Towns and Villages -- and School Districts. I am employed to ensure that their capital financing (municipal bonds) meet the greatest success in the market. I have a deep and long term interest in the performance of Illinois schools.
I see that you are attempting to get a truth in taxation (as you describe it) act regarding the actual cost of a referendum proposal. Well and good.
But this is a single area among the many nooks and crannies which the general Assembly has in the past seen fit to legislate but not in the light of day. It will not, for instance, address the overcharging for drivers education courses as a means of funneling more money into the schools.
The following is extracted from a presentation I made to regional meetings last year of what I called the Flying Madigan Budget Circus. It addressed nine areas in need of legislative attention.
First, taxpayers generally believe that they are permitting their resources to be taxed for a specific purpose. After that specific purpose is accomplished the resources should be disencumbered. It is their money.
The legislature has systematically expanded the ability of the School District to issue non referendum debt. It allows the schools to finance new debt when old bonds are retired without asking taxpayer permission. It is not the school’s money; it is the taxpayers to whom it belongs. A Referendum established the single purpose for which the debt was approved. No additional debt without referendum approval should be permitted.
Second, referenda are now crafted to permit tax collections in the same year as the referenda were passed, putting taxpayer on a short fuse. This is an unnecessary burden. Taxpayers suffering a reassessment receive a second increase in taxes in the same year as a result of a successful referendum.
Third, the Capital Development Board has in many instances foisted construction grants on local School Districts with the School District permitted non-referendum funding bonds to complete the construction. Local taxpayers were excluded from the decision process. Working Cash Bonds are permitted to pay for projects -- a vile corruption of the working cash process.
Fourth, school construction, whether financed through State grants or through local debt issuance, is authorized to proceed without any indication that the additional money will be on hand to pay for its manning and operation. A referendum may have approved a construction project. A second referendum to increase tax rates and obtain moneys for the costs of operations may be simultaneously defeated and can be delayed until the shining new school sits on the plot of ground empty.
The State should never permit capital to be spent either through its grants or as the sale of Building Bonds or for any capital improvement purpose until it can be demonstrated that sufficient revenues are on hand without any new operating tax increases to staff, operate and maintain it.
Fifth, Early Retirement Plans are a continuing scandal. School boards must not be complicit in these attempts to enrich its employees -- but they are -- and at the expense of local taxpayers and eventually the State of Illinois.
The Governor’s modest plan to minimize this enrichment does not go far enough. While these plans before implementation appear to provide present value savings to a School District, there has been no requirement to provide ex post studies to the State and the taxpaying public (i) showing what the savings have been, and (ii) verifying what the savings are in relation to what was projected. The State should require such reporting, at the very least to be able to judge its efficacy.
The State should also not permit its Title I moneys be used to pay the artificial salary increases caused by the pension maximization program. Title I money for a current year should be reduced by the increase above the rate of inflation in salaries paid in the previous year.
Further, no person receiving a monthly check from the Pension Fund and retiring early should be permitted to accept another job within the educational establishment (within or without the State of Illinois) until his normal retirement date is reached or for a period of five years, whichever is greater. That would include private sector consulting jobs. The Department of Defense, for instance, has a similar process.
Sixth, under the permissive legislation of the State, School Districts are using Working Cash Bonds and Working Cash funds to make permanent transfers instead of temporary loans to their operating funds. These loopholes must be closed. Why? These one time transfers, while the debt service levy or working cash fund levy is in place, enable School Districts to violate, without referendum, tax rate ceilings and tax caps. The State has permitted the use of these moneys for construction, for indirectly paying higher salaries and thus pensions
Seventh, the State permits public employees in the teaching profession to go on strike and interrupt the educational process. Worse, the State allows Districts in settlement to enter into labor contracts, the cost of which exceed the anticipated available resources. No public body should be permitted under law to offer contracts for services to their employees the cost of which exceeds the current and forecast revenue from its existing resources. Such settlements that anticipate tax increases from referenda must be made illegal. Any contract which anticipates property tax increases as a source of payment for contractee services shall be null and void.
Eighth, tenure in K-12 Schools is a perversion of the Tenure Principle in universities. There, tenure permits a professor to engage in research – which may be controversial but which advances the level of knowledge in his field. Tenure at the K-12 level, automatically granted for continuing employment is featherbedding, especially when combined with collective bargaining and the closed shop.
Ninth, entry into the teaching field has been unnaturally restricted. As a retired naval intelligence officer, let me say that there is a large pool of personnel retiring each year from the Armed Forces, who have obtained subject matter mastery and who could be recruited to teach in our schools. Gubernatorial and legislative attention must be paid to eliminate or minimize barriers to these people of a certain maturity. Credit must be given for their own knowledge and experience as well as the educational courses and teaching experience in their service. The schools themselves must be permitted to open up the closed shop which appears to be the rule.
The State has made some effort correct the problems above. However, their efforts were abortive and incomplete. They need your attention.
The problems above, while significant, do not reflect the major problem area in primary and secondary education. Put simply, it is this: regardless of the level of funding, the education provided in our schools is not competitive with that being provided overseas. It is a twenty first century world economy -- a world which is knowledge based. America is not educationally equipped to compete. Please see the attachment for a discussion of this.
In the best of all worlds the cost of education should be related to the value of output. At present, qualitatively, the cost far exceeds the value -- and money is not the cure. The system needs reformation. There are culprits. The education mafia controls the system, the local school boards, the ISBE and -- unfortunately -- the legislature. The Teachers Union is out of control, the Administrators come from the same schools of education, as do the regulators. There is only one cure -- competition. Full school choice will raise standards and lower costs. This is easily demonstrable and I would be pleased to discuss this further.
In the meantime, welcome to the fray -- but one battle will not win this war. I hope you are in it for the long haul.
Respectfully,
Paul D. Speer, Jr.
My Dear Sir,
I am an Illinois resident, living in Lake County and working as a financial advisor to Illinois (and Indiana) Counties, Cities, Towns and Villages -- and School Districts. I am employed to ensure that their capital financing (municipal bonds) meet the greatest success in the market. I have a deep and long term interest in the performance of Illinois schools.
I see that you are attempting to get a truth in taxation (as you describe it) act regarding the actual cost of a referendum proposal. Well and good.
But this is a single area among the many nooks and crannies which the general Assembly has in the past seen fit to legislate but not in the light of day. It will not, for instance, address the overcharging for drivers education courses as a means of funneling more money into the schools.
The following is extracted from a presentation I made to regional meetings last year of what I called the Flying Madigan Budget Circus. It addressed nine areas in need of legislative attention.
First, taxpayers generally believe that they are permitting their resources to be taxed for a specific purpose. After that specific purpose is accomplished the resources should be disencumbered. It is their money.
The legislature has systematically expanded the ability of the School District to issue non referendum debt. It allows the schools to finance new debt when old bonds are retired without asking taxpayer permission. It is not the school’s money; it is the taxpayers to whom it belongs. A Referendum established the single purpose for which the debt was approved. No additional debt without referendum approval should be permitted.
Second, referenda are now crafted to permit tax collections in the same year as the referenda were passed, putting taxpayer on a short fuse. This is an unnecessary burden. Taxpayers suffering a reassessment receive a second increase in taxes in the same year as a result of a successful referendum.
Third, the Capital Development Board has in many instances foisted construction grants on local School Districts with the School District permitted non-referendum funding bonds to complete the construction. Local taxpayers were excluded from the decision process. Working Cash Bonds are permitted to pay for projects -- a vile corruption of the working cash process.
Fourth, school construction, whether financed through State grants or through local debt issuance, is authorized to proceed without any indication that the additional money will be on hand to pay for its manning and operation. A referendum may have approved a construction project. A second referendum to increase tax rates and obtain moneys for the costs of operations may be simultaneously defeated and can be delayed until the shining new school sits on the plot of ground empty.
The State should never permit capital to be spent either through its grants or as the sale of Building Bonds or for any capital improvement purpose until it can be demonstrated that sufficient revenues are on hand without any new operating tax increases to staff, operate and maintain it.
Fifth, Early Retirement Plans are a continuing scandal. School boards must not be complicit in these attempts to enrich its employees -- but they are -- and at the expense of local taxpayers and eventually the State of Illinois.
The Governor’s modest plan to minimize this enrichment does not go far enough. While these plans before implementation appear to provide present value savings to a School District, there has been no requirement to provide ex post studies to the State and the taxpaying public (i) showing what the savings have been, and (ii) verifying what the savings are in relation to what was projected. The State should require such reporting, at the very least to be able to judge its efficacy.
The State should also not permit its Title I moneys be used to pay the artificial salary increases caused by the pension maximization program. Title I money for a current year should be reduced by the increase above the rate of inflation in salaries paid in the previous year.
Further, no person receiving a monthly check from the Pension Fund and retiring early should be permitted to accept another job within the educational establishment (within or without the State of Illinois) until his normal retirement date is reached or for a period of five years, whichever is greater. That would include private sector consulting jobs. The Department of Defense, for instance, has a similar process.
Sixth, under the permissive legislation of the State, School Districts are using Working Cash Bonds and Working Cash funds to make permanent transfers instead of temporary loans to their operating funds. These loopholes must be closed. Why? These one time transfers, while the debt service levy or working cash fund levy is in place, enable School Districts to violate, without referendum, tax rate ceilings and tax caps. The State has permitted the use of these moneys for construction, for indirectly paying higher salaries and thus pensions
Seventh, the State permits public employees in the teaching profession to go on strike and interrupt the educational process. Worse, the State allows Districts in settlement to enter into labor contracts, the cost of which exceed the anticipated available resources. No public body should be permitted under law to offer contracts for services to their employees the cost of which exceeds the current and forecast revenue from its existing resources. Such settlements that anticipate tax increases from referenda must be made illegal. Any contract which anticipates property tax increases as a source of payment for contractee services shall be null and void.
Eighth, tenure in K-12 Schools is a perversion of the Tenure Principle in universities. There, tenure permits a professor to engage in research – which may be controversial but which advances the level of knowledge in his field. Tenure at the K-12 level, automatically granted for continuing employment is featherbedding, especially when combined with collective bargaining and the closed shop.
Ninth, entry into the teaching field has been unnaturally restricted. As a retired naval intelligence officer, let me say that there is a large pool of personnel retiring each year from the Armed Forces, who have obtained subject matter mastery and who could be recruited to teach in our schools. Gubernatorial and legislative attention must be paid to eliminate or minimize barriers to these people of a certain maturity. Credit must be given for their own knowledge and experience as well as the educational courses and teaching experience in their service. The schools themselves must be permitted to open up the closed shop which appears to be the rule.
The State has made some effort correct the problems above. However, their efforts were abortive and incomplete. They need your attention.
The problems above, while significant, do not reflect the major problem area in primary and secondary education. Put simply, it is this: regardless of the level of funding, the education provided in our schools is not competitive with that being provided overseas. It is a twenty first century world economy -- a world which is knowledge based. America is not educationally equipped to compete. Please see the attachment for a discussion of this.
In the best of all worlds the cost of education should be related to the value of output. At present, qualitatively, the cost far exceeds the value -- and money is not the cure. The system needs reformation. There are culprits. The education mafia controls the system, the local school boards, the ISBE and -- unfortunately -- the legislature. The Teachers Union is out of control, the Administrators come from the same schools of education, as do the regulators. There is only one cure -- competition. Full school choice will raise standards and lower costs. This is easily demonstrable and I would be pleased to discuss this further.
In the meantime, welcome to the fray -- but one battle will not win this war. I hope you are in it for the long haul.
Respectfully,
Paul D. Speer, Jr.
Truth in Spending:
The below text was taken directly from The Center for Education Reform Website.
"Billions of dollars continue to be wasted, absorbed by layers of administration and countless regulations that serve only to stifle dynamic innovation and school-level reform. Meanwhile, calls for more money are all too well received in the face of well-documented evidence that money alone can't buy educational excellence. Throwing good new funds after bad, misspent funds is bad policy. And while many systems are inequitable the fault — and source of rectifying this lies with who controls the purse strings." David A. DeSchryver, Policy Analyst
Spending more will not solve our public school problems. We must continue to vote down all increased funding to school districts until our legislators truly reform our public education system. Vote no on all education referenda March 21st demand accountability and the spending problem will resolve itself. To view the rest of the article above click here.
"Billions of dollars continue to be wasted, absorbed by layers of administration and countless regulations that serve only to stifle dynamic innovation and school-level reform. Meanwhile, calls for more money are all too well received in the face of well-documented evidence that money alone can't buy educational excellence. Throwing good new funds after bad, misspent funds is bad policy. And while many systems are inequitable the fault — and source of rectifying this lies with who controls the purse strings." David A. DeSchryver, Policy Analyst
Spending more will not solve our public school problems. We must continue to vote down all increased funding to school districts until our legislators truly reform our public education system. Vote no on all education referenda March 21st demand accountability and the spending problem will resolve itself. To view the rest of the article above click here.
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Jim responds to Jon Strug
Reading Jon Strug's letter sends shivvers down my spine. Its disturbing
to think that the role of government as portrayed in Strug's letter may
sit well with a large segment of the American population. With the
deteriorating public awareness of the origins of free government, we
present Strug's letter and offer our response point-for-point.
Re: Michael Baier's Jan. 12 letter. (From the Northwest Herald)
Baier, the version of "big government" to which I subscribe actually
pays for itself.
My "big government" is a government that protects people from the abuses
of polluters, banks, employers and insurance companies.
My "big government" takes the taxes of the rich and invests in jobs that
create more consumers who create more wealth for everyone, not just the
top 1 percent.
My "big government" helps people not only because we have a Christian,
moral or human obligation to do so, but because when everyone does
better, everyone does better.
President Franklin Roosevelt believed that the poor shouldn't have to
depend on the kindness of strangers. The era of small government ended
when he became the Democratic presidential nominee.
I wouldn't have to explain my version of big government, because my son
believes that it's right to help everyone.
To explain today's big government and all the debt it has accrued, I
would say, "Greedy, selfish people took control of government through
lies and manipulation and used it to finance their friends."
My question to you is: What do you get with small government? Do you
have to help shovel the streets? Are stop signs optional? Is harming
your neighbor voluntary?
Jon Strug
Cary
Point 1: There is no such thing as "government that pays for itself".
Government is not a profit center. By its nature, government is always
an expense of the public. As government grows, it changes from a
"necessary expense" to an exploitation mechanism.
Point 2: The role of small government, not big government, is to protect
opportunity. Big government adds forcible redistribution of wealth,
forcible demographic engineering (tax breaks for homeowners and hybrid
cars), and confiscation of fundamental lifestyle decisions (ex.
retirement, education, work relations.)
Point 3: The "rich" actually make themselves richer by engaging in the
very practices Strug falsely attributes to government. They routinely
invest their income into additional business ventures that create jobs
and wealth for a large middle class. Big government wastes taxes on
dubious foreign aid, cronyism, and studies of bumblebee mating habits.
Point 4: Big government harms, not helps people. A person taxed out of
$10,000 has $10,000 less with which to buy products to create beneficial
jobs, $10,000 less with which to provide direct aid to others, and
$10,000 less with which to raise a family. Big Government takes the
$10,000, wastes $7,500 of it, and provides $2,500 in aid to people who
may or may not deserve aid. Big government robs taxpayers of the right
to decide who needs and deserves their help.
Point 5: FDR preferred that the poor depended on the government, his
government. His policies did not reduce or eliminate any dependencies,
they merely centralized them.
Point 6: Just because your son believes its "right to help everybody"
does not give him the right to impose this morality on an entire
nation, nor does it mean we all share the same idea of what constitutes
"helping", who deserves our help, or how much help.
Point 7: It is true that "Greedy selfish people took control", but this
is not an anomaly. The Founding Fathers understood that any government
of man could ultimately not be trusted, which is why they worked so
hard to limit its power and prohibit direct taxation by the federal
government (overridden by the 16th amendment). Mikhail Bakunin warned
Karl Marx that big government Communism would ultimately lead to
totalitarianism, since it would be impossible to prevent big
government from falling into tyranny. Greed, selfishness, lies, and
manipulation are an inseparable part of Big government.
Point 8: What do you get with small government? The greatest national
ascendancy in modern history. You get freedom, self determination,
opportunity, and prosperity. Big government gave us the Third Reich,
the Soviet Union, Cuba, and North Korea. The Founding Fathers were not
stupid.
to think that the role of government as portrayed in Strug's letter may
sit well with a large segment of the American population. With the
deteriorating public awareness of the origins of free government, we
present Strug's letter and offer our response point-for-point.
Re: Michael Baier's Jan. 12 letter. (From the Northwest Herald)
Baier, the version of "big government" to which I subscribe actually
pays for itself.
My "big government" is a government that protects people from the abuses
of polluters, banks, employers and insurance companies.
My "big government" takes the taxes of the rich and invests in jobs that
create more consumers who create more wealth for everyone, not just the
top 1 percent.
My "big government" helps people not only because we have a Christian,
moral or human obligation to do so, but because when everyone does
better, everyone does better.
President Franklin Roosevelt believed that the poor shouldn't have to
depend on the kindness of strangers. The era of small government ended
when he became the Democratic presidential nominee.
I wouldn't have to explain my version of big government, because my son
believes that it's right to help everyone.
To explain today's big government and all the debt it has accrued, I
would say, "Greedy, selfish people took control of government through
lies and manipulation and used it to finance their friends."
My question to you is: What do you get with small government? Do you
have to help shovel the streets? Are stop signs optional? Is harming
your neighbor voluntary?
Jon Strug
Cary
Point 1: There is no such thing as "government that pays for itself".
Government is not a profit center. By its nature, government is always
an expense of the public. As government grows, it changes from a
"necessary expense" to an exploitation mechanism.
Point 2: The role of small government, not big government, is to protect
opportunity. Big government adds forcible redistribution of wealth,
forcible demographic engineering (tax breaks for homeowners and hybrid
cars), and confiscation of fundamental lifestyle decisions (ex.
retirement, education, work relations.)
Point 3: The "rich" actually make themselves richer by engaging in the
very practices Strug falsely attributes to government. They routinely
invest their income into additional business ventures that create jobs
and wealth for a large middle class. Big government wastes taxes on
dubious foreign aid, cronyism, and studies of bumblebee mating habits.
Point 4: Big government harms, not helps people. A person taxed out of
$10,000 has $10,000 less with which to buy products to create beneficial
jobs, $10,000 less with which to provide direct aid to others, and
$10,000 less with which to raise a family. Big Government takes the
$10,000, wastes $7,500 of it, and provides $2,500 in aid to people who
may or may not deserve aid. Big government robs taxpayers of the right
to decide who needs and deserves their help.
Point 5: FDR preferred that the poor depended on the government, his
government. His policies did not reduce or eliminate any dependencies,
they merely centralized them.
Point 6: Just because your son believes its "right to help everybody"
does not give him the right to impose this morality on an entire
nation, nor does it mean we all share the same idea of what constitutes
"helping", who deserves our help, or how much help.
Point 7: It is true that "Greedy selfish people took control", but this
is not an anomaly. The Founding Fathers understood that any government
of man could ultimately not be trusted, which is why they worked so
hard to limit its power and prohibit direct taxation by the federal
government (overridden by the 16th amendment). Mikhail Bakunin warned
Karl Marx that big government Communism would ultimately lead to
totalitarianism, since it would be impossible to prevent big
government from falling into tyranny. Greed, selfishness, lies, and
manipulation are an inseparable part of Big government.
Point 8: What do you get with small government? The greatest national
ascendancy in modern history. You get freedom, self determination,
opportunity, and prosperity. Big government gave us the Third Reich,
the Soviet Union, Cuba, and North Korea. The Founding Fathers were not
stupid.
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Jim's Response to Teacher's Retort
Of course Jim could not help but parody the Letter to the Editor (LTE) titled Teacher's Retort in the Northwest Herald. I am not sure where Mel Ingram copied this but you can view one version at lovethissite.com. Jim's parody is first and then you can read the LTE.
Child's Retort
Let me see if I've got this right:
You want me to go into a room with a teacher who only remains employed
because of a state tenure law, hoping that I will learn?
And I'm supposed to develop character in an environment where teachers
shut down the school with a strike, indoctrinate us with ethically
neutral leftist bunk, where individualism is discouraged and religious
expression is illegal?
You want me to be my own person in an environment where every non
conformist child is drugged up and sent into "Special Education", where
under-performers are passed along, and overachievers are held back?
And I'm supposed to master reading, writing, math, and science when our
teachers seem only able and willing to teach us Whole Language, New
Math, Diversity, Multiculturalism, and Multiple Intelligences?
You expect me to get excited about attending the only school the state
will allow you to send me to because of where we live? I'm expected to
adopt an academic work ethic from teachers who take three months off
every year and retire a decade younger than my parents?
I am supposed to honor my mother and father when my school and teachers
tell me my parents are bad for opposing a tax increase, when my school
sends me home with papers calling my parents selfish?
You expect me to do all of this and not to pray?
Jim Peschke
Teacher's retort
[published on Tue, Jan 24, 2006 in the Northwest Herald]
To the Editor:
Let me see if I've got this right:
– You want me to go into that room with all those kids and fill their every waking moment with a love for learning.
– And I'm supposed to instill a sense of pride in their ethnicity, modify their disruptive behavior, observe them for signs of abuse, and even censor their T-shirt messages and dress habits.
– You want me to check their backpacks for weapons and raise their self-esteem.
– You want me to teach them patriotism, good citizenship, sportsmanship, fair play, how to register to vote, how to balance a checkbook, and how to apply for a job.
– I am to recognize signs of anti-social behavior, make sure all students pass the mandatory state exams – even those who don't come to school regularly or complete any of their assignments.
– All of this I am to do with just a piece of chalk, a computer, a few books, a bulletin board, a big smile and on a starting salary that qualifies my family for food stamps.
– Yet you expect me to do all this and not to pray?
Mel Ingram
Crystal Lake
Child's Retort
Let me see if I've got this right:
You want me to go into a room with a teacher who only remains employed
because of a state tenure law, hoping that I will learn?
And I'm supposed to develop character in an environment where teachers
shut down the school with a strike, indoctrinate us with ethically
neutral leftist bunk, where individualism is discouraged and religious
expression is illegal?
You want me to be my own person in an environment where every non
conformist child is drugged up and sent into "Special Education", where
under-performers are passed along, and overachievers are held back?
And I'm supposed to master reading, writing, math, and science when our
teachers seem only able and willing to teach us Whole Language, New
Math, Diversity, Multiculturalism, and Multiple Intelligences?
You expect me to get excited about attending the only school the state
will allow you to send me to because of where we live? I'm expected to
adopt an academic work ethic from teachers who take three months off
every year and retire a decade younger than my parents?
I am supposed to honor my mother and father when my school and teachers
tell me my parents are bad for opposing a tax increase, when my school
sends me home with papers calling my parents selfish?
You expect me to do all of this and not to pray?
Jim Peschke
Teacher's retort
[published on Tue, Jan 24, 2006 in the Northwest Herald]
To the Editor:
Let me see if I've got this right:
– You want me to go into that room with all those kids and fill their every waking moment with a love for learning.
– And I'm supposed to instill a sense of pride in their ethnicity, modify their disruptive behavior, observe them for signs of abuse, and even censor their T-shirt messages and dress habits.
– You want me to check their backpacks for weapons and raise their self-esteem.
– You want me to teach them patriotism, good citizenship, sportsmanship, fair play, how to register to vote, how to balance a checkbook, and how to apply for a job.
– I am to recognize signs of anti-social behavior, make sure all students pass the mandatory state exams – even those who don't come to school regularly or complete any of their assignments.
– All of this I am to do with just a piece of chalk, a computer, a few books, a bulletin board, a big smile and on a starting salary that qualifies my family for food stamps.
– Yet you expect me to do all this and not to pray?
Mel Ingram
Crystal Lake
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Teachers gone bad aka using children as political pawns.
The hat tip goes to Education Matters. There are a lot of links in the post, to view the complete post in the Education matters BLOG click here.
I received a couple of phone calls this afternoon about the Teachers wearing buttons today in school. The buttons supposedly said, “Working without a contract.” I have not seen one yet, but both callers confirmed this. They also stated the teachers were telling the children who asked about them, to tell their parents to call the School Board. The word “strike” was used in the explanation to one of the children.
I have made a few phone calls tonight and sent a few emails. It is now my understanding the teachers are not to wear the buttons to school again.
When I heard about the buttons, the first thing I thought of was that the teachers union was using the children as pawns to get what they want. That is not the way you claim to be helping the kids. That is called blackmail.
Children should not be pawns in your power play. The children are innocent bystanders, but they will be the ones getting hurt if the teachers decide to strike. From what I can gather, the teachers are to meet next Tuesday and will vote to strike if the contract is not resolved. If that is true they must file with the ISBE giving 10 days notice. That makes the potential strike date Feb. 14th. If you think I am way off base, check out this comment pulled from d46.info:
I received a couple of phone calls this afternoon about the Teachers wearing buttons today in school. The buttons supposedly said, “Working without a contract.” I have not seen one yet, but both callers confirmed this. They also stated the teachers were telling the children who asked about them, to tell their parents to call the School Board. The word “strike” was used in the explanation to one of the children.
I have made a few phone calls tonight and sent a few emails. It is now my understanding the teachers are not to wear the buttons to school again.
When I heard about the buttons, the first thing I thought of was that the teachers union was using the children as pawns to get what they want. That is not the way you claim to be helping the kids. That is called blackmail.
Children should not be pawns in your power play. The children are innocent bystanders, but they will be the ones getting hurt if the teachers decide to strike. From what I can gather, the teachers are to meet next Tuesday and will vote to strike if the contract is not resolved. If that is true they must file with the ISBE giving 10 days notice. That makes the potential strike date Feb. 14th. If you think I am way off base, check out this comment pulled from d46.info:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)